'Arms recovery sans forensics not conclusive'
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that the recovery of a weapon, without forensic confirmation linking it to the crime, cannot be treated as incriminating evidence. Citing serious gaps in the prosecution's case, the court acquitted Shahid Mehmood alias Demo, who had been convicted of killing two people during a dacoity.
A two-member bench led by Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem observed that the prosecution "miserably failed" to establish the convict's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The bench criticized the trial court for giving undue weight to the recovery of a Kalashnikov and bullets, which were neither linked to the crime through forensic evidence nor shown to be in the exclusive possession of the accused.
The prosecution had presented the recovery of a Kalashnikov and three bullets from an abandoned house as key evidence. However, the court found that this recovery failed on multiple counts.
"No crime empties were sent to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) for ballistic comparison with the recovered weapon," the judgment noted. "Without this forensic linkage, the recovery remains disconnected from the crime."
The court also noted that the prosecution failed to prove that the location from where the weapon was recovered was in Shahid's exclusive control.
The site plan prepared by the investigating officer lacked any such confirmation, and no circumstantial evidence was offered to establish the accused's dominion over the abandoned house. The bench ruled that the identification parade conducted more than 20 months after the crime was unreliable.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
21 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Special attorney not liable for acts performed on behalf of principal: LHC
LAHORE: The court held that a special attorney functions as an agent and he is not personally liable for acts performed on behalf of the principal. The court restrained the respondents from recovering the decretal amount from the petitioner Abdul Razzaq, or from attaching the petitioner's immovable property, merely on account of his status as the special attorney of the principal. The court; therefore, directed the respondent authorities to initiate and conclude recovery proceedings against the judgment-debtor Abdul Khaliq within three months. LHC explains what actually constitutes power of attorney The court observed that the responsibility of the attorney and surety with the judgment-debtor is coextensive with that of the judgment-debtor. The court said the liability of a special attorney in execution proceedings must be determined with reference to the specific contents and scope of the power of attorney executed in his favour. The court observed that a power of attorney must be construed strictly, and only those acts, duties, and obligations that are expressly conferred upon the attorney may be lawfully performed by him. The court said that no implied or assumed obligation can be fastened upon an agent beyond what has been clearly and expressly delegated. It observed that in the present case, the petitioner, acting as a special attorney, neither made any substantive commitment to satisfy the decree nor exceeded the scope of authority conferred by the power of attorney; therefore, no coercive action can lawfully be directed against him, the court added. The court said doing so would amount to an excess of jurisdiction and a violation of the fundamental principle that delegated authority does not create personal liability unless expressly undertaken. The court; therefore, held that the impugned actions of the respondents in proceedings against the petitioner who is not the judgment-debtor are ultra vires, without lawful authority, and contrary to settled legal norms. The court said if the judgment-debtor is residing abroad or is otherwise avoiding execution, the proper legal recourse lies under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, which permits the recovery of the decretal amount as arrears of land revenue. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
'Offer met with silence can't be accepted later'
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside a family court's ruling, observing that an offer or proposal which is not expressly accepted and is instead met with silence, conduct or behaviour indicating disinterest or unwillingness, cannot be accepted at a later stage. The case involved petitioner Ahmed Raza, who, during family court proceedings, offered that he had no objection to the decreeing of two suits - one for recovery of maintenance allowance and another for dowry articles and gold ornaments - in favour of Respondent No.2. However, he made this conditional upon her parents or real brothers swearing a special oath on the Holy Quran, affirming that her claims were truthful. Interestingly, at the time, the respondents did not respond to the offer, neither accepting nor rejecting it. The petitioner subsequently closed his oral evidence, sought time to produce documentary evidence, and the case was fixed for final arguments on November 16, 2020. However, before the final arguments could proceed, the respondents filed an application expressing their willingness to accept the petitioner's earlier offer made during cross-examination. The petitioner contested this application, requesting the court to decide the suits on merit. Nevertheless, the family court ruled that the petitioner could not back out of the offer or proposal he had made. Challenging this decision, the petitioner approached the LHC, which overturned the family court's order. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan held that once the trial had moved forward, leaving the offer unaccepted, it became ineffective. "The party missed the train by not expressly accepting the offer promptly," the judge noted. Thereafter, the petitioner's documentary evidence was recorded, and the matter was set down for final arguments. Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 contended that once the offer for a special oath was made, the petitioner could not withdraw from it. Subsequently, the LHC held that a lack of timely acceptance rendered the proposal null and void.
Express Tribune
5 days ago
- Express Tribune
Imran again refuses lie detector tests
Incarcerated former prime minister Imran Khan on Monday refused to undergo lie detector test for the fourth time and a team comprising policemen and members of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) returned after waiting at Rawalpindi's Adiala Jail for four hours. An anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Lahore had allowed police to conduct the text on Imran in connection with cases filed against him and a number of PTI leaders after unprecedented incidents of vandalism in which dozens of army installations were attacked on May 9 and May 10 or 2023. According to sources, a Lahore police investigation team led by DSP Asif Javed arrived at Adiala Jail at 12:45 pm to conduct a polygraph test, photogrammetric and voice matching tests. Members of the PFSA were also part of the investigation team, including inspectors Muhammad Aslam, Tasaddaq, Saleem, and Naveed as well technical expert Abid Ayub. Upon their arrival, the prison authorities informed the PTI founder, but he refused for the fourth time to join the investigation. Sources said Imran was informed that the investigation team had come with a court order, yet he again declined to undergo the tests. After Imran's refusal to cooperate in the investigation process, the teams had to return after a long wait. Earlier, Imran Khan had stipulated that he would only participate in the investigation and undergo the tests in the presence of his lawyers. However, when the investigators returned with his legal counsel present, he provided a written response stating that Article 13 grants him protection from being compelled to become a witness against himself or assist in producing evidence that may be used against him. Lahore ATC-I Judge Manzer Ali Gill on May 14 allowed the police to conduct polygraphlie detectionand photogrammetricfacial and voice analysistests of Imran Khan in twelve May 9 cases. The judge had ordered completion of the tests within 12 days, saying the prosecution might meet the PTI founder in Adiala Jail during that period. Meanwhile, addressing a press conference in Lahore, PTI leadersSalman Akram Raja and Malik Ahmed Khansaid there is no restriction on Imran Khan's sons to return to Pakistan and participate in politics. The PTI founder's sonsKasim and Suleimanhave remained throughout their lives in the United Kingdom with their mother--Imran's first wife Jemima Goldsmith In a rare interview released on social media on May 13, Kasim and Sulaiman spoke about the alleged "suppression of democracy" in Pakistan and a lack of basic facilities for Imran Khan in his prison cell. They said their father was being kept in prison on "trumped up charges." They also urged US President Donald Trump and the international community to help free their father from prison, appealing to "people of influence" around the world to press for his release. WITH INPUT FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT IN LAHORE
