MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH vs State art — 2022 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH VS State art. 84---Power of Trial Court to compare signatures on disputed documents---Scope---article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 empowers the Courts to compare the disputed signatures in order to ascertain whether the same is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written or made---However, in matters where no direct evidence is available and the prosecution case exclusively rests on indirect evidence or where the prosecution's case is solely based upon the alleged admission of the accused then as an abundant caution the Courts while convicting an accused must adopt the safest way, which furthers the true spirit behind the safe administration of criminal justice. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH VS State Reasonable doubt, benefit of---Scope---Single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of accused makes him entitled to its benefits, not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right---Conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence---Any doubt arising in prosecution's case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH VS State art. 61---Handwriting expert, opinion of---Reliance on such opinion---Scope---In absence of sufficient evidence available on the record in the shape of oral or documentary evidence, the evidence of handwriting expert is always considered to be most unsatisfactory, weak and decrepit to deserve a place in the system of jurisprudence and the courts are not to base their findings merely on the expert's opinion. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH VS State S. 5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409---Misappropriation of machinery/equipment by government employee---Reappraisal of evidence---Lack of direct evidence---Record reflected that there was no direct evidence available on the record, which could connect the accused with the commission of the crime---Prosecution's case mainly hinged upon the testimonies of four prosecution witnesses, who belonged to the same department as the accused---Crux of the testimonies of the said four witnesses was that during the inquiry proceedings the accused had confessed his guilt and had submitted an application seeking time to return the articles---However, a specific question in that regard was put to the accused while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. but he categorically denied the filing of any such application or his signatures on the said application---Neither the disputed signatures of the accused were sent to the handwriting expert nor the forensic test of the same was done to get them verified in a scientific manner and the Trial Court of its own compared the admitted signatures of the accused with the disputed signatures on the alleged application filed by him---At the time of registration of the crime report neither the inventory of the alleged stolen articles nor their description was given --- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was acquitted of the charge. Head NotesCase Description

MUHAMMAD SAMIULLAH vs State art — 2022 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR