https://aliveforms.com/form/E4eqNO0jKmQkG9nA

SYED NAEEM ALI Advocate, district courts layyah, Kot Sultan (2026)

25/08/2026

A postmortem report is a documented expert opinion. Although admissible as documentary evidence, it does not prove itself. Its production must comply with the requirements of the QSO, which demand proof of both ex*****on and contents. When the doctor who conducted a postmortem report is unavailable, secondary evidence may be permitted, but only upon fulfilment of the conditions set out in (naeem)Article 76 QSO. These include proof that the original has been lost, destroyed, unlawfully withheld, or otherwise cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense.

Section 509(1) Cr.P.C. provides a statutory exception: The deposition of a Civil Surgeon or other medical witness, taken and attested by a Magistrate in the presence of the accused, or taken on commission under Chapter XL, may be given in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of 1898, although the deponent is not called as a witness. However, section 509(2) provides that the court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine such deponent as to the subject-matter of his deposition. The utility of this provision is also underscored in Rule 6, Chapter 18, Volume III of the High Court Rules and Orders.

The Code of 1898 does not expressly employ the term “remand” in the context of appellate proceedings. However, such power is implicit in sections 423 and 428 Cr.P.C., which authorize the appellate court to order retrial or direct the taking of additional evidence where necessary for a just decision of the(naeem) case. At the same time, section 537 Cr.P.C. provides that no finding, sentence, or order shall be reversed or altered on account of any error, omission, or irregularity in the proceedings unless it has, in fact, occasioned a failure of justice. Therefore, when considering whether a remand is necessary to cure a procedural irregularity, the appellate court must determine: (i) whether the irregularity is one that goes to the root of the case or is merely technical, (ii) whether it is curable under section 537 Cr.P.C., and (iii) whether its impact has occasioned a failure of justice. If the defect is such that it can be remedied without prejudicing the accused, a remand may be justified. However, it cannot be ordered merely to afford the prosecution an opportunity to fill lacunae in its case. The distinction between an “curable irregularity” and a “lacuna” is, therefore, crucial in determining whether a remand is warranted.

A criminal court is not a passive spectator and must ensure that evidence is recorded in accordance with the law.7 Where material evidence has been improperly exhibited owing to non-compliance with statutory requirements, an appellate court may, in appropriate circumstances, consider remand so that such evidence is proved in the manner prescribed. Whether such a course would amount to permitting a party to fill a lacuna or merely to rectify a procedural defect depends upon the facts of each case. In the (naeem)present matter, the postmortem report forms part of the record but stands excluded because it was not proved in accordance with the law. However, the power to remand is discretionary and must be exercised with due regard to its practical utility. Even if the postmortem report were to be duly proved on remand, it would only establish the nature and cause of death. It would not, by itself, remedy the serious deficiencies in the prosecution’s ocular, forensic, and circumstantial evidence, which are examined below. In these circumstances, a remand would merely prolong the proceedings without affecting the ultimate decision of the case. It would therefore serve no useful purpose. I decline to remand the case.

In the present case, the trial court observed that neither party had come forward with the whole truth and invoked Syed Ali Bepari v. Nibaran Mollah and others (PLD 1962 SC 502) to reconstruct the incident. It misdirected itself in doing so, as that authority is of limited application. It permits independent evaluation of the evidence where both parties have suppressed material facts, but it does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Any inference drawn by the court must be founded on admissible evidence and proved circumstances, (naeem)and not on conjecture or speculation. In any event, if the trial court was inclined to discard both versions and reach its own conclusion, it was incumbent upon it to do so neutrally and on the basis of legally admissible evidence. Instead, it rested its findings substantially on the prosecution’s account, without addressing the material contradictions and omissions discussed above. The Appellant also raised a specific plea in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C., denying his presence at the scene, whereas the prosecution attributed to him a direct and fatal role. The trial court did not engage with this fundamental inconsistency or resolve it through a reasoned evaluation of the record.
Criminal Appeal No.12055/J/2022
Umar Hayat Vs. The State
Criminal Revision No.10970/2022
Muhammad Hanif Vs. The State

25/08/2026

VVVVVVI. MUST READ JUDGEMENT.
Rule 22.16 of the Police Rules contains detailed provisions for handling the case property. Safe custody of the case property, including both the sample parcels and the remaining bulk, is pivotal in prosecutions based on the recovery of contraband material. The prosecution must establish that the chain of custody remained intact at every stage. The Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Chapter 24-B, Part B, Rule 14-E mandates: “The evidence should never leave it doubtful as to what person or persons have had charge of such articles throughout the various stages of the inquiry if such doubt can be cleared up. This(naeem) is especially necessary in the cases of articles sent to the Chemical Examiner. The person who packs, seals, and dispatches such articles should invariably be examined.” The Supreme Court of Pakistan reaffirmed the principle in numerous cases. Rule 14-E, supra, must be read in tandem with the Police Rules.

The Lahore High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Chapter 24-B, Part B, lays down detailed procedures for producing and marking physical evidence during trial. Rule 14-F requires that every article forming part of the circumstantial evidence (such as clothes, weapons, narcotics, or money) must be produced in the court, and its identity and connection with the case must be established through competent witnesses. Rule 14-H provides that such articles, once admitted in evidence, must be properly marked as “admitted” or “not admitted”, and those admitted should be assigned (naeem)exhibit numbers in serial order. These requirements are mandatory.

To properly apply Rules 14-F and 14-H, it is necessary to understand the term “exhibit” clearly. As a verb, it means “to show or display; to offer or present for inspection”. As a noun, it connotes “a paper or document produced and exhibited to a court during a trial or hearing, or to a person taking depositions, or to auditors or arbitrators as a voucher, or in proof of facts, or as otherwise connected with the subject matter, and which, on being accepted, is marked for identification and annexed to the deposition, report, or other principal document, or otherwise made a part of the case.” Therefore, exhibition alone is not sufficient. Rule 14-F expressly requires that witnesses must prove the article’s “connection with the case and identity.” The operative word here is “identify.” A witness cannot meaningfully identify a sealed article without seeing or inspecting(naeem) its contents. Identification entails more than a ceremonial gesture. It involves recognizing and affirming that the item shown is the same one recovered, handled, or observed in the context of the offence.

Rule 14-F imposes a four-step obligation: first, the article must be produced through a competent witness; second, it must be displayed in open court; third, the witness must identify it and confirm its relevance to the case; and fourth, it must be marked and admitted as an exhibit. If the article is enclosed in a sealed parcel, the court must de-seal it during the trial to enable proper identification. Anything less would reduce the witness’s testimony to a mere formality and deprive it of evidentiary value. These requirements are not technicalities; they are safeguards against substitution or tampering.
Criminal Appeal No. 500/J/2024
Zulfiqar Ali v. The State

25/08/2026

بانی پی ٹی آئی عمران خان کے علاج کے معاملے میں عظمیٰ خان کی سپریم کورٹ میں دائر کی گئی توہین عدالت کی درخواست
Crl.O.P.8/2026
Uzma Khan v. Lt. (Retd.) Sohail Ashraf (PAS) and others

25/08/2026

The Competition Act, 2010 mandates that the Commission shall be administratively and functionally independent. The Commission alone is competent to advise the undertakings individually to pass on to the consumers the benefit of the reduction in the price of raw materials, enabling each undertaking to independently determine the prices of its finished products in accordance with its own commercial considerations.
C.A.367/2025
Pakistan Vanaspati Manufacturers Association (PVMA) v. Competition Commission of Pakistan
Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
25-08-2026

25/08/2026

This is a case in terms of Section 489-F P.P.C. which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of subsection (2) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.). As per settled law, grant of bail in case involving offence falling outside prohibitory clause is a rule and refusal an exception, which may attract in cases where there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused; apprehension of the accused tempering with the prosecution evidence; and the danger of the offence being repeated.
Quantum of amount involved in a case registered under section 489-F P.P.C., could not be treated as an exception to the general rule that in cases falling under the category of non-prohibitory clause, bail shall be considered favorably.

Crl. Misc. No.40200-B/2026
Austin Sabir vs State
21-08-2026
2026LHC5313

24/08/2026

Although an offence under section 406, PPC is non-compoundable in nature, yet the factum of an amicable out of-Court settlement between the parties has consistently been regarded as a relevant circumstance while considering the question of bail, as such settlement tends to restore harmony between the parties and put an end to their hostility.

Notwithstanding the non-compoundable nature of an offence, an amicable settlement between the parties does not become altogether inconsequential while considering the question of bail. Though such settlement cannot amount to compounding of the offence within the contemplation of section 345, Cr.P.C., it may nevertheless be taken into consideration as a relevant circumstance in the exercise of judicial discretion, particularly where the complainant has voluntarily forgiven the accused, does not wish to pursue the matter and raises no objection to the grant or confirmation of bail.
Case No: Crl. Misc. No. 3115-B of 2026
Muhammad Ishfaq @ Ishtiaq vs The State
19-08-2026
2026LHC5308

24/08/2026

2026 SCMR 251
As per report of Medical Officer, at the time of post mortem, rigor mortis was fully developed---Rigor mortis signified the post-mortem stiffening of both voluntary and involuntary muscles in the human body---Such process typically commenced within 2 to 4 hours after death and achieved full development within approximately 12 hours in a temperate climate---Similarly, the reverse process with which rigor mortis disappeared was called algor mortis---In sudden natural deaths occurring in a temperate climate during average seasonal conditions rigor mortis usually commenced within 2 to 4 hours of death, which reached to a peak in about 12 hours and started to disappear after another 12 hours---Admittedly, the deceased was young male of 26 years in a temperate climate area where the weather was comparatively hot even in early winters---Occurrence statedly took place at 06:00 p.m. and the post-mortem was conducted the next day at 01:30a.m. i.e. after 7-1/2 hours---Swift development of complete rigor mortis on the body of young adult deceased in the temperate region contradicted the time of occurrence deposed by the prosecution witnesses and development of rigor mortis within such short span of time was implausible which suggested that the occurrence did not appear to have taken place at the point of time mentioned by the witnesses---Determination of time was further clarified by deposition of Medical Officer who conducted post-mortem of deceased---Said Medical Officer admitted during the cross-examination that as per his report, the time duration between death and post mortem was sixteen to eighteen hours and by that calculation the death occurred on 15.10.2005 in between 7:30 a.m. to 09:30 a.m.---Said witness further admitted that according to the condition of dead body it was impossible that death occurred in between 05:00 p.m. to 07:00 p.m. as alleged by prosecution---Deposition of expert witness/Medical Officer also appeared to be in accord with the medical jurisprudence---

24/08/2026

2023 SCMR 2016
Site plan ---Scope and purpose---Statement of prosecution witnesses of the ocular account contradictory to the site plan qua the inter-se distance between the accused and the victim---Preference---Statements of prosecution witnesses would have precedence over the site plan in such circumstances---Even otherwise, site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence having no legal sanctity---Purpose behind the preparation of site plan is to explain or give a glimpse of the occurrence in black and white enabling the concerned to appreciate the facts of the case in a more rational way.

2020 SCMR 1414
Site plan ---Scope---Site plan was never considered as a substantive piece of evidence nor any benefit may be extracted therefrom unless the witnesses were duly confronted with the purported anomaly or discrepancy therein.

24/08/2026

"CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE".
------------------------------------

JUDGEMENTS OF SUPREME COURT AND LAHORE HIGH COURT.

2026 SCMR 1146
Circumstantial evidence ---Reliance---Principle---In cases where evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established---Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter, Court should consider total cumulative effect of all proved facts, each one of which reinforces conclusion of guilt---If combined effect of all facts taken together is conclusive in establishing guilt of accused, conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself/ themselves, is/ are not decisive---Circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved but it does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence , alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by accused howsoever, extravagant and fanciful it may be.

PLD 2026 SC 251
Circumstantial evidence ---Scope---Punishment can be imposed based on circumstantial evidence ---Such punishment is subject to rigorous standards and principles---Conviction exclusively on the basis of circumstantial evidence is not prohibited by law---Quality and sufficiency of evidence are more important than its quantity---circumstantial evidence must be of a nature that is inconsistent with innocence of accused---Accused must be linked to the offense by a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence ---Conclusion of guilt must be reached by collective application of various species of circumstantial evidence , with one end of the chain touching deceased individual and the other touching the neck of accused individuals---If any link in such chain is absent, the entire chain is disrupted and no conviction can be recorded in such a situation.

2025 SCMR 1558
Circumstantial evidence ---Scope---In case of circumstantial evidence , every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---If any link in the chain is missing then its benefit must go to the accused.

2025 SCMR 1399
Circumstantial evidence ---Conviction---Scope---Conviction can be recorded even in case carrying capital punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused---However, circumstantial evidence should be accepted with great caution and has to be scrutinized minutely for reaching the conclusion that no plausible conclusion can be drawn except guilt of the accused.

2024 SCMR 1782
Case based on circumstantial evidence ---Principle---In a case where there is no direct evidence and the prosecution case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence , utmost care and caution is required for reaching at a just decision of the case---In such like cases every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other the neck of the accused---If any link in the chain is missing then its benefit must go to the accused.

2023 SCMR 1140
Circumstantial evidence ---Prosecution cases dependent upon circumstantial evidence ---In such cases in order to justify the inference of guilt of an accused, the incriminating fact must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.

PLD 2021 SC 600
Circumstantial evidence ---Standard of care required for relying on circumstantial evidence stated.

2017 SCMR 2026 -
Case based on circumstantial evidence ---Principles---To believe or rely on circumstantial evidence , it was imperative for the prosecution to provide all links in an unbroken chain, where one end of the same touched the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---To carry conviction on a capital charge it was essential for the courts to deeply scrutinize circumstantial evidence because fabricating of such evidence was not uncommon---Minute and narrow examination of circumstantial evidence was necessary to secure the ends of justice---For a case resting on circumstantial evidence prosecution had to establish the case beyond all reasonable doubts---Beyond "reasonable doubt" did not mean any doubt but it must be accompanied by reasons, sufficient to persuade a judicial mind for placing reliance on the same---Where circumstantial evidence was short of such standard, it was better to discard the same so that an innocent person might not be sent to the gallows---To draw an inference of guilt from such evidence, the court had to apply its judicial mind with deep thought, extra care and caution and whenever there was any indications showing the design of the prosecution of manufacturing and preparation of a case, the courts had to show reluctance in beleiving it unless it was judicially satisfied about the guilt of accused person and the required chain was made out without any missing link---Court also had to keep in mind that sometimes the circumstantial evidence collected by the investigating agency seemed apparently believable however, if strict standards of scrutiny were applied there would appear many cracks and doubts therein, and in such a case courts had to discard and disbelieve the same.

2017 SCMR 986 --
Case based on circumstantial evidence ---Death, sentence, award of---Scope---For placing reliance on circumstantial evidence , in cases involving capital punishment, such evidence must be of the nature, where, all circumstances must be so inter-linked, making out a single unbroken chain, where one end of the same touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---Any missing link in the chain would destroy the whole and would render the same unreliable for recording a conviction on a capital charge---In cases of circumstantial evidence , there were chances of procuring and fabricating evidence, therefore, Courts were required to take extra care and caution to narrowly examine such evidence with pure judicial approach to satisfy itself, about its intrinsic worth and reliability, also ensuring that no dishonesty was committed during the course of collecting such evidence by the investigators---Where there were apparent indications of designs on part of the investigating agency in the preparation of a case resting on circumstantial evidence , the court must be on its guard against the trap of being deliberately misled into a false inference---Court's failure to observe such care and caution would be a failure of justice.

2017 SCMR 728
Circumstantial evidence --- Conviction---Scope-

2016 SCMR 1144
Circumstantial evidence , reliance upon---Scope---Deduction about the guilt of the accused could well be drawn from the circumstances---Where however the circumstances so reported were tinkered and tampered with, or contrived and conjured up, they could not be accepted without careful and critical analysis---circumstantial evidence could form basis of conviction if it was incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt.

2016 SCMR 274
Circumstantial evidence , reliance upon---Scope---Different pieces of circumstantial evidence had to make one chain, an unbroken one where one end of it touched the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---Any missing link in such chain, broke the whole chain and no conviction could be recorded in crimes entailing capital punishment---Courts had to take extraordinary care and caution before relying on the circumstantial evidence ---To justify the inference of guilt of an accused person, the circumstantial evidence must be of quality that was incompatible with the innocence of the accused; if circumstantial evidence was not of such standard and quality, it would be highly dangerous to rely upon the same by awarding capital punishment---Better and safe course in such circumstances would be not to rely upon such circumstantial evidence .

2026 YLR 864
Circumstantial evidence ---Scope---In a case of circumstantial evidence , the prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance by way of reliable and clinching evidence---Circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused could be reached.

2026 PCrLJ 875
Circumstantial evidence ---Scope---In cases of circumstantial evidence , prosecution is required to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it must form a complete, continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances, firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence---If any link is missing then obviously benefit is to be given to the accused.

2026 PCrLJ 824
Circumstantial evidence ---Scope---circumstantial evidence in an unseen occurrence should be like a well-knit chain and each circumstance is to be connected with each other to make one complete chain---If even one link of the chain is missing that would entitle the accused to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt.

2025 YLR 197
Circumstantial evidence ---Conviction---Scope---It is imperative for the prosecution to provide all links in chain as unbroken, where one end of the same touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused.

2024 YLR 2521
Circumstantial evidence ---Scope---In cases of circumstantial evidence , prosecution is required to link each circumstance to the other in a manner that it must form a complete, continuous and unbroken chain of circumstances, firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence---If any link is missing then obviously benefit is to be given to the accused.

2024 YLR 1127
Circumstantial evidence ---Last seen evidence--- Scope--- In circumstantial evidence , prosecution has to prove two of its basic ingredients which are proximity of time and proximity of distance---Proximity of time to prove the evidence of last seen rests on the principle of "de recenti" which lays emphasis that time span between the event of last seen and death must be very short---Short duration between the evidence of last seen and the murder incident in fact eliminates the possibility that the deceased parted the company of accused and joined some other person---More is the distance between evidence of last seen and the death of deceased, greater is the possibility about the hypothesis of innocence of the accused---Failure of prosecution to prove the proximity of time and distance is destined to weaken the evidence of last seen.

2024 PCrLJ 1764
Circumstantial evidence ---Scope---Conviction can only be awarded on the basis of circumstantial evidence when it impeccably connects the accused with the commission of crime---For awarding conviction, the incriminating circumstances must be so closely inter-woven with each other that from their appraisal no conclusion other than guilt of accused is to be drawn---Any break in the chain of circumstances or legal inadmissibility of its any part renders such evidence unworthy of credence and cannot be used for raising the superstructure of conviction.

2024 PCrLJ 1310
Circumstantial evidence ---Case based upon circumstantial evidence ---In such like cases, every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused---If any link in the chain was missing then its benefit must go to the accused.

SYED NAEEM ALI Advocate

25/08/2026

25/08/2026

25/08/2026

25/08/2026

25/08/2026

24/08/2026

24/08/2026

24/08/2026

24/08/2026

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request