[ Art. 117 to 129 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.]
Standard of proof in criminal cases. "A mere balance of probabilities is enough in a civil action but in a criminal case the probabilities must converge to establish the guilt of the prisoner with complete moral certainty. Lord Wright said in Wallace case: If every matter relied on as circumstantial is equally or substantially consistent both with the guilt or innocence of the prisoner the multiplication of these instances may not take you any further in coming to a conclusion of guilt".
Lord Mansfield on proof in civil cases. "As mathematical and absolute certainty is seldom to be attained in human affairs, reason and public utility require that Judges and mankind in forming their opinion of the truth of facts should be regulated by the superior number of probabilities on the one side or the other!"
Supreme Court of Pakistan: "Finding of guilt against an accused cannot be based merely on the high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a given case. Finding of guilt should rest surely and firmly on the evidence produced. Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof. Otherwise the golden rule of benefit of doubt will be reduced to naught". (SC) PLD 1970 SC 10 Muhammad Luqman.
Accused pleading exception under the Penal Code, onus shifts on the accused. Accused failing to prove exception, the Court cannot scrutinise the prosecution evidence for giving benefit of doubt to the accused. (DB) 48 P.Cr.LJ 809 Lal etc. v. Crown.
Burden of proving exception that the case of the accused falls in exception is on the shoulders of the accused and he is to discharge the burden by proving the existence of such circumstances. (DB) PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Pesh) 1835, Sheraz v. Muhammad Ayub etc.
Onus on accused to prove that his case was within any exceptions. Murder-Plea of self-defence. Burden of proving existence of circumstances justifying the plea lies on the accused. Court to presume absence of circumstances justifying such plea in absence of rebuttal of presumption by the accused. (See Section 105, Evidence Act.) (SC) 1969 SCMR 802 Hukam Zad.
Burden of proof on the accused to establish his plea in defence does not arise until the case is established against him by the prosecution. Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of any plea raised by the accused in defence. 1995 SCMR 1377, Shamoon.
Accused need not prove or plead exception to section 300, P.P.C. (Exceptions 1 to 5) (now amended Sec. 300, P.P.C. is different): Prosecution must affirmatively prove circumstances under which act was committed. Burden never shifts from prosecution to defence, even in respect of an exception to section 300. Accused entitled to benefit of doubt though he may have only suggested a reasonable possibility of his case falling under an exception to section 300, P.P.C. (PLD 1953 FC 93 ref. Safdar Ali's case) PLJ 1974 Kar. 106 Shaukat Ali.
Accused's burden not as heavy as that on prosecution: Burden to prove the general issue is always on prosecution. Accused failing to prove special pleading but succeeding in raising reasonable doubt is entitled to acquittal. "Whole of the evidence" to be looked to in entirety and not merely special pleading of accused irrespective of prosecution evidence . There is no conflict between section 105 Evidence Act and the principle laid down in Woolmington's Case. (FC) PLD 1953 FC 93 Safdar Ali v. Crown.
Burden of proof: Prosecution is not bound to prove in corruption cases that the money received from the accused was for doing illegal favour. 1980 P.Cr.LJ 1039 Ghulam Muhammad.
Burden on accused to prove that he acquired his knowledge in innocent way when he points out the place where corpse of deceased was burnt and bones of human being, footwear and ring, etc. was discovered. Accused, held. Guilty under section 201, P.P.C. (DB) PLD 1951 Lah. 352 Sher Bahadur v. Crown.
Burden of the accused: Despite provision of section 106 of Evidence Act onus in criminal cases rests on prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section 106 cannot be construed to mean that this onus at any stage shifted to accused to prove his innocence or to make up for the failure of prosecution to produce evidence to establish guilt of the accused. PLD 1977 SC 352. Rehmat PLD 1977 SC 515.
Despite provision to the contrary. Section 106 E.A. cannot be construed to mean that onus at any stage shifts on to the accused to prove his innocence nor any presumption can be made against him under section 114 (f) E.A.Despite section 8 of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Ordinance XVIII of 1974, initial burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilty of the accused. (DB) PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Quetta) 557. State v. Ghazi etc. PLD 1978 Quetta. 191.
Onus of poof of guilty knowledge does not shift from the prosecution to the accused, and it is not necessary for the accused to prove affirmatively that he came by the goods innocently. (In a case under section 411, P.P.C.). Held, if he can give explanation which might raise doubt in the mind of the Court, as to his guilt he will be entitled to the benefit of doubt. PLD 1951 Bal. 14 Ido v. Crown.
Recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the accused. Burden on the accused to prove how he came by the knowledge of the place of concealment of such articles. (DB) PLD 1966 Lah. 157 Fateh Sher v. Crown.
Burden of proving accident does not lie on the accused. Death caused by firearm injuries. Prosecution must prove not only that firing was intentional or voluntary but also that it was prompted by intention or knowledge as mentioned in section 300, P.P.C. Failure to prove such knowledge or intention by the prosecution entitled the accused to acquittal. Plea of accident. Burden of proving the accident not on the accused. PLD 1959 Lah. 655 Swab Gul.
Grave and sudden provocation: Burden lies on the accused to prove the exception. Yet in absence of affirmative proof, accused may have benefit of doubt raised on examining prosecution evidence side by side with defence version (Section 300, Exception 1) (DB) PLD 1957 Lah. 31 Muhammad Iqbal.
Self-defence: Evidence not led to prove the plea but accused's version receiving support, to the extent of being reasonably possible, from prosecution evidence. Accused entitled to acquittal. (SC) PLD 1958 SC 242, Shamit.
Failure to prove alibi: Onus always remains on prosecution to prove its case. Failure to prove alibi does not recoil to the disadvantage of the accused. (SC) 1969 SCMR 584 Ilahi Bakhsh etc. also see alibi.
defence version false: Prosecution story, not therefore necessarily true. Burden on prosecution to prove its case. PLD 1950 Kar. 273-A. Mirza Zada v. Crown. PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Lah.) 376 State v. Fateh Muhammad.
Version of the accused unconvincing. Prosecution nevertheless to prove its case. (SC) 1969 SCMR 612 = 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1185 Wali Muhammad. PLJ 1980 SC 478 = PLD 1980 SC 317 Ali Sher.
Falsehood by accused: Accused cannot be convicted merely for having told untruth in relation to one or more facts alleged against him. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 792 Muhammad Fazil Karim.
Weakness of defence: Onus always lie on prosecution to prove its case. Prosecution to succeed on the strength of its own case and not on the weakness of the defence. (SC) 1971 SCMR 432 Hakim Ali.
Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Such burden cannot be discharged by weakness in defence case. 1998 SCMR 854, Mst. Shamshad.
Reasonable doubt. It is prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Burden never shifts. reasonable doubt arising on considering a case as a whole, the benefit must go to the accused, though what he has pleaded has not been fully established by him. (FC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1047 Ali Gohar v. Crown. (SC) PLD 1977 SC 515 Rehmat.
Prosecution to prove guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Section 106 E.A. does not shift onus on the accused at any stage to prove his innocence. (SC) PLD 1977 SC 515 Rehmat.
Prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from the weakness of defence. PLD 1994 S.C. 858, Rab Nawaz etc.
Burden of proving the prosecution case is on the prosecution and does not depend on the weakness of the defence. PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh) 1599, Ishtiaq Ahmed.
Prosecution to prove its case; beyond reasonable doubt. Such burden cannot be discharged by weakness in defence case. 1998 SCMR 854 Mst. Shamshad.
Mere entrustment of property and its shortage would not be enough to establish guilt of dishonest misappropriation and mere existence of adverse presumption cannot be equated with establishment of guilt. Onus is on the Prosecution to prove its case. Appellat acquitted. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Q) 1463 Manzoor Ali.