Barkat LAW Associates

14/09/2022

14/09/2022

Scope and meaning of “cross-version” in a bail matter.

PLD 2022 Supreme Court 694

The well-settled principle of law as to the effect of a crossversion of the occurrence involved in a case, at bail stage, is that mere existence of a cross-version is not a valid ground for holding the case one of further inquiry to grant bail under Section 497(2) CrPC, unless it is supported by the material available on record of the case and on tentative assessment of that material, the court either finds it prima facie true or remains unable to determine even tentatively which one of the two versions is prima facie true. It is in the latter situation where the court remains unable to determine even tentatively, which one of the parties is aggressor and which one is aggressed upon, that the case against both parties falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), CrPC. The determination of “the aggressor and the aggressed upon”, whether tentatively at bail stage or finally on conclusion of trial, is relevant to decide culpability of a party for the occurrence as this determination consequently decide which one of the parties was assailant and which one acted in self-defence. When a court cannot decide even tentatively, at bail stage, such culpability of a party on the basis of material on record of the case, it leaves this matter for determination on conclusion of the trial after recording the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, if produced, and gives the benefit of the requisite further inquiry to both parties by granting them bail under Section 497(2) CrPC. If the courts start considering every case involving a cross-version as one of further inquiry without any tentative assessment of the worth of the cross-version, it can encourage an accused to concoct a false or fabricated cross-version so as to bring his case within the ambit of further inquiry and thereby get bail. That is why the courts are to make a tentative assessment of the material, if any, available on record of the case in support of the cross-version at bail stage and should not readily accept it as a valid ground to treat the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC.

19/08/2022

Remarks/Issue/Section of law 302/324/34 Foundation of Islam is on justice, which is different from the concept of the remedial justice of the Greeks, the natural justice of Romans or the formal justice of the Anglo Saxons. Justice in Islam seeks to attain a higher standard of what may be called ‘absolute justice’. Principle of natural justice is an integral part of system of “Adl” and “Ehsan”. Justice or “Adl” according to Islamic concepts demands a perfect standard of comparison, estimation or judgment. Justice in Islam is much more than the retributive or remedial justice of the Greeks, the formal justice of the Romans or even the natural justice of Anglo American common law and its fountainhead is the Holy Quarn and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet Muhammad ( ). It is a cardinal principle of Islamic law of justice that one who seeks justice must be fair and should do justice. It is indisputable that for proper administration of justice it is necessary that the parties who have knowledge of the facts present them in their true form before the Court and not conceal them. Accordingly, Allah has forbidden the Muslims for withholding or concealing evidence relating to the issue to be decided by another. In Surah Al-Baqra 11 Ayat No.283 Muslims have been advised: “If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, then a pledge in hand (shall scuffle). And if one of you entrusted to another let him who is trusted deliver up that which is entrusted to him (according to the pact between them) and let him observe his duty to Allah. Hide not testimony. He who hideth it, verily his heart is sinful, Allah is Aware of what ye do”. Injured witnesses are not necessarily truthful witnesses and their testimony always subject to scrutiny in accordance with well settled principles of criminal administration of justice. The witnesses who lied upon any material fact must be disbelieved to all facts because of the reason that the presumption that the witnesses must state the truth, and ceases to be as such as soon as it manifestly appears that he has lied before the Court, his testomony cannot be relied upon. The Court cannot allow a witness to tell lie or mix truth with falsehood and then make the responsibility of the Court to sift the grain from chaff.
Cr. A No. 878-P of 2021
Noor Muhammad Vs Faqeer Hussain etc

05/08/2022

2022 S C M R 1229
Bail , cancellation of --- Accused was specifically nominated in the crime report wherein a specific accusation of causing firearm injuries on the abdominal region of the complainant was alleged against him --- Occurrence had taken place in broad daylight and there was no chance of any misidentification especially when the parties were known to each other --- Injuries ascribed to the accused were supported by medical evidence --- Mode and manner of the occurrence was fully established from the record --- Offence alleged against the accused did fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 , Cr.P.C. - Bail had been granted to the accused against the merits and ignoring the principles for grant of bail --- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed , and bail granted to accused was cancelled .