“There is no ocular evidence to show that Muhammad Abbas was murdered by any of your present petitioners. Mere fact that Noor Muhammad and Muhammad Din observed firstly the deceased and after a long way they noticed the petitioners going towards the same direction, did not indicate that the petitioners were chasing the deceased or were accompanying him. These kinds of evidence cannot be treated as evidence of final seen.
۔۔۔۔واقعاتی شہادت فوجداری قانون مین درجہ بندی کے لھاظ سے کمزور حیثیت رکھتی ہے۔۔۔ جب تک واقعاتی شہادت کی تمام کڑیاں اس طریقے سے فراہم نہ کی گءی ہوں کہ ایک متواتر زنجیر کی شکل اختیار کرے اور مقتول اور قاتل کے درمیان نہ ٹوٹنے والا سلسلہ قاءم کرے تب تک سزاےموت یا تعزیری سزا /عمر قید کسی کو دینا انصاف کے اصولوں کے منافی ہے۔
Capital Punishment: Section 302 PPC supplies for the death penalty since the primary form of punishment for intentional murder. The offender could be sentenced to death as retribution for taking the life of another human being unlawfully.
Some bodies are presented statutory powers to issue direction with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, including the Highway Code.
The explained recovery can be used, within the most, for corroboration on the main evidence, but by itself it cannot be described as a basis for conviction. They further submitted that the petitioners Bhoora and Mst. Mubeena Bibi also pointed out the place of incidence. The reported memo of pointation is irrelevant and inadmissible as nothing at all was discovered on account of these types of pointation. The place of occurrence together with the place of throwing the dead body were already inside the knowledge of witnesses just before their pointation with the petitioners. Reliance can be placed on case legislation titled as “Ijaz Ahmad and Another v. The State” (1997 SCMR 1279) wherein it's been held via the august Supreme Court of Pakistan as under:
کیا ایف آئی آر درخواست گزار کی رپورٹ پر درج کی گئی تھی اور اگر ہاں تو کیا اسے اس کے خلاف ثبوت کے طور پر استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے؟
148 . Const. P. 8180/2019 (D.B.) Saif Shujaat and Ors V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi Presented the legal analysis on the subject issue, we're in the view that the claim with the petitioners for retroactive regularization from their First contract appointment and promotion thereon, from that angle isn't legally audio, Apart from promotion and seniority, not absolute rights, They may be subject matter to rules and regulations When the recruitment rules of the topic post permit the case of the petitioners for promotion may very well be thought of, however, we've been distinct in our point of view that contractual service cannot be thought of for seniority and promotion since the seniority is reckoned from the date of normal appointment and promotion depends upon seniority cum fitness, subject matter to availability of vacancy subject to your approval of your competent authority. Read more
48 . Cr.Misc. 787/2024 (S.B.) Muhammad Anwar V/S S.P Complaint Cell Hyderabad & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2025 SHC HYD 12 Justice in the Peace u/s 22-A is just not obliged to afford a chance of hearing to your accused party; nor obliged to always or mechanically issue directions for registration of FIR; but is needed to think about all relevant factors, with care and caution; to avoid machinery of criminal law from being misused; frivolous complaints must be discouraged; relationship, enmity, transactions, litigation and other remedies, are a lot of the relevant factors. Read more
13. The Supreme Court has held that when the act of misconduct is set up plus the employee is found guilty after thanks process of law, it's the prerogative of your employer to decide the quantum of punishment, outside of the various penalties provided in regulation. The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not proportionate with the seriousness on the act of misconduct is not really ample though the order must show that the competent authority has applied its mind and exercised the discretion inside a structured and lawful fashion. Read more
acquitted the appellants from all of the charges therefore the same is dismissed being infructuous. (Criminal Revision )
The scrupulous reader may have noticed some thing over: a flaw. Outside of the first 7 words, the definition focuses over the intention to cause “Injury,” not the intention to cause death. The 2 primary elements that must be proven in order to convict a person of the crime are “
Article 199 in the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other adequate remedy is provided by legislation." It really is well-settled that an aggrieved person must exhaust obtainable remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction, regardless of whether click here Those people remedies suit them. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents unnecessary High Court litigation. Read more
However, it’s essential to note that the application on the death penalty is topic to several legal safeguards and due process to make certain fair trials.
The necessary analysis (called ratio decidendi), then constitutes a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary on the determination from the current case are called obiter dicta, which constitute persuasive authority but are usually not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil legislation jurisdictions are generally shorter, referring only to statutes.[4]