Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--------- ----------Ss. 302, 34 & 109---------Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.200, 202, 204 & 510---------Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.73, 74, 78 & 79---------Qatl-i-amd, common intention---------Abetment---------Private complaint---------Proof of segregation and handwriting---------Execution of document required by law to be attested---------Respondents/accused persons, produced in their defence, defence witness who was Statistical Assistant, whose examination was intercepted twice by the petitioner/complainant by raising couple of objections---------Trial Court overruled said objections with direction that the statements of the defence witness be completed---------Validity---------Document produced by the defence witness, depicted electronically generated evidence, which in terms of Art.73 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, could be considered primary evidence---------Print out or other form of output of an automated information system, could not be denied the status of primary evidence, solely for the reason that it was an output of automated information system---------Document in question, was not prepared manually, nor had been marginally signed by the executors or the witnesses thereof---------Such was the product of automated system, which was hardly required to be signed by any one---------Tendering a document in evidence, was something different from proving same in contents thereof---------Admissibility of a document in evidence by itself, would not absolve the party from proving its contents in terms of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---------Defence witness, did not fall within any of the categories mentioned in S.510, Cr.P.C.; he had to depose about contents of document in question; and petitioner/complainant, would be within her right to cross-examine him, so as to shake his credibility---------Merely by tendering the said document in evidence, without saying a word to the contents thereof by defence witness, it would not be possible for the Trial Court to assess the evidentiary value thereof---------Petitioner, appeared to have shown unnecessary haste in raising objections, without anticipating the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492