*criminal trail ۔ step wise case laws*
pld 2009 lah 36
sec. 9a, 9b, 9c.
schedule of punishment
recover
1997scmr 947
requirements of 103 cr.p.c. not complied with, entitled for bail
sample
2005mld 38
samples sent for chemical examination from only one pack, case to fall under 9a
chemical examine
2002 mld 44,
lab report not brought on record
2007 crlj 913,
conviction can only be under 9a when sample made from only one piece
2009 nlr cr. 126, s.103,
non compliance fatal for prosecution
charg
2009 ylr 507, purpose of charge
child witness
2010 plj sc 113
civil and criminal litigation*
2006 clc 28
judgment of criminal court does not influence case in civil court
2006 scmr 276,119
2007 crlj 143, 2008 crlj 1
civil and criminal litigation can go side by side
compromise on bail stag
2002 pcrlj 100
2005 scmr 134
complaint s/20
1994 pcrlj 430
complaint to be recorded by magistrate himself
*dismissal of complaint in cognizable and non-compoundable case case is void ab initi
2003scmr 5
cross examination
2002 ylr 2362,
no cross-examination means statement to that extent stands admitted
1991 scmr 2300,
omission to cross-examine-- however was rebutted by making
suggestions and denying the same in evidence
2010 pcrlj 1253,
cross-examination of a witness is not just a formality, but is a valuable right of accused and best method to ascertain truth---where defence counsel is not available at the relevant time, court is under obligation to cross-examine the witnesses in order to ascertain the truth
2010 pcrlj 812,
cross examination by accused himself
defence ple
2008 ylr 2910,
defence plea---law required that if accused had a defence plea, same should have been put up to the witnesses in cross-examination and then put up the same at the time of recording the statement under sec. 342, cr.p. c
discharge repor
court not bound to agree,
2003pcrlj 244(a), 1500.
2004 ylr lah 836(b) prof. nawaz case
finger prin
plj 2010 sc 57
non appearance of finger print expert in support of plea is of no help
fir*
plj 2010 sc 986
plj 2010 cr.c. 466,
accused was not mentioned in fir
contents of fir revealed that witnesses had seen the accused for the first time. if accused were not named in fir then identification parade becomes necessary
habeas corpu
2010plj lah 39
habeas corpus against father is not competent. ref 2001scmr 178
interim bai
2003pcrlj 40
injured witness-truthful witnes
2007scmr 670
only affirmative of his presence at the spot but not of his credibility
interested witnes
2010 plj cr.c (lah) 55
2007 plj sc 22
plj 2010 sc aj&k,
witness made improvement in his statement, could not be considered as independent witness
2006 nlr cr.184,
conduct of eye witness unnatural
investigatio
2007 psc (supreme court) 182, investigation, defect in---effect--
such defect might not be a valid ground for discharge of an accused, but insufficiency in evidence would definitely be a strong ground to discharge him
investigating officer
2003 pcrlj 244(a),1500,
discharge report, court not bound to agree with police report
judge and la
2007 nlr cr. 217,
law is sometimes called an ass but judge should as far as it is possible, try not to become one
337f(v) pp
2004 pld sc 477
2005mld 454,
2009 pcrlj 7
489-f pp
bail grant of...behind the bars for the last five months, had admitted liability to extent of rs. 400,000,
2010 plj sc 1085,1087
(sec.489-f), bail granted where suit for recovery had been instituted. 2006 crlj 77, 3
2011mld 311 bail refused
s.452 p
2009 pcrlj 1259
previous litigation, s. 452 not attracted
2008 pcrlj 915,
injured not examined, fatal for prosecution case
nlr 1998 cr. lah 10,
fir not lodged by owner of house, not competent
minor discrepancies.
minor contradictions
1968 pcrlj 1273,
2002 ylr 3620,
when a witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination, it was very natural that some discrepancies would crop up and in such situation minor discrepancies should be ignored
2006 nlr cr. 28,
minor contradictions in statements of pws as to venue of occurrence would be hardly of any consequence
2006 nlr cr. 184,
statements of pws in contradictions with each other, no evidentiary value.
prevention of corruptio
plj 2004 sc 36
sec.420, 468, 471 ppc
court can acquit at any stage. accused had filed a civil suit, element of fraud was to be ascertained yet
recover
sec.103 cr. p.c.
2010 plj cr.c. 448
strict compliance of sec.103 was not required
recovery witness
1994 pcrlj 475
(p.o. recovery witness
1993 scmr 1608,
2004 mld 1253(b),
2000 pcrlj 340(b)
police witnesses are competent witness as any other in absence of any material to indicate that they were biased
1999 pcrlj 356,
recovery ---witness who was accused in a criminal case and was under the influence and pressure of concerned police official could not be associated as a witness in recovery proceedings
recovery mem
2010 pld sc 513
over writing, cutting in recovery memo...highly doubtful
sole witnes
2010. pld cr.c. 311,
2006 nlr cr. 270,
quality of evidence. even in murder case testimony of single reliable witness is enough to base conviction
sec. 22/a cr.p.
2011 mld 223,
instead of filing constitution petition, petitioner could file private complaint
2010plj lah 699, 309,
without going into veracity of information, without going into investigation. ref pld 2007sc 53
2010 plj pesh 52
(cognizable offence, case to be registered
plj 2010 l 465,
justice of peace can direct police to do the needful in accordance with law but not the procedure or give the direction to do a certain act
s. 340(2) cr.p
1991 pcrlj note 65 page 46, question not put in interrogative form, prejudicial
s. 342 cr.p
1999 mld 2168,
mandator
2000 mld 370
incriminating material not put to accused
2011 mld 239
failure to put any piece of evidence, held recovery could not be used as evidence
nlr 2006 cr, 236 (lah),
failure by accused to take before trial court to point out non putting of incriminating material, would show no prejudice caused
s.540 cr.p.
plj 2011 fsc 114,
technicalities should not stand in way of judge/justice... c;. . . y c;.c.. ) 9 . c.. s;. o;. . ) ; . y;..4n; . . ;... . . pc.9 c,5 ,c,. w;. 👮.-n;. . 64s;. s;9l:26s;.. ,**.5t;. t;. a;. . . . s;9o.. 0*23e;. 2.9**3; .e:. . . r:.6s:. y:. 2,ial court to point out non putting of incriminating material, would show no prejudice caused.
S.540 Cr.P.C;
PLJ 2011 FSC 114,
Technicalities should not STAND in way of JUDGE/JUSTICE...
0 Comments