Search of a house to detect commission of Zina is not allowed u/Ss. 10, 13 and 14 of Cr.P.C. Inquiry, trial or proceedings under, Cr.P.C. must be done for the issuance of warrants for house search. FIR registered in consequence of the house search for offences u/Ss. 10, 11, 14 of Zina Hudood Ordinance quashed. PLD 1998 Lah. 35, Riaz v. SHO
Recovery evidence is of no consequence when direct evidence fails. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Kar.) 400, Manoo.
Recoveries do no play a decisive role in a case where the ocular evidence is disbelieved and the investigation is suspect. 1992 SCMR 2088, Asghar Ali etc.
Licensed crime gun recovered. Recovery by itself not sufficient for coming to conclusion of its owner having fired it. Possibility of access to gun of accused's relation cannot be ruled out. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 590. (Kar.) Raziq Dino.
Knife from sugar-cane field. Constable alongwith the accused bringing knife from sugarcane field while recovery witnesses remained outside. Person of constable not searched before entering field. Possibility of producing knife from his own possession held cannot be ruled out in the circumstances of the case. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 614. Khurshid.
Recovery of knife buried in ground, although place accessible to general public yet the knowledge that it was buried at a particular spot pointed out by the accused it could be presumed that the knife was in his various possession. Conviction upheld. 1984 SCMR 1382. Nazir Hussain.
No recovery of weapon made from appellant although stated to be armed with a revolver at the time of the incident. Ocular evidence was inimical and lacked corroboration. Accused acquitted on benefit of doubt. PLD 1994 S.C. 259, Muhammad Ishaq Khan and others.
Particular gun not proved to have been recovered from particular accused. Ballistic expert evidence connecting particular cartridge with particular gun, valueless. (SC) PLD 1963 SC 25. Wasiullah v. Mirza Ali etc.
Exclusive knowledge. Rifle lying hidden under chaff within exclusive knowledge of accused and recovered at his instance from his cattle shed. Recovery relied on. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1201. Muhammad Aslam.
Crime weapon recovered not in presence of the accused has no corroborative value. (SC) 1969 SCMR 269. Alam Khan v. Gaus Muhammad. Contra (FB) PLD 1964 Pesh. 288 Muhammad Ayyub.
Crime weapon and clothes allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, such articles remaining with the police for 8 days and origin of blood on them not determined, recovery in such a case does not connect the accused with the offence. (DB) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 655. Hafeez Ullah.
Murder weapon recovered at the instance of a person other than the alleged murder is of no consequence. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 697. Qabil Shah.
Recovery at the instance of the accused, head of the deceased from water course, and of blood-stained sickle, blood found on the clothes of the accused, held, is not by itself sufficient to establish guilt u/S. 302 PPC but is enough for conviction u/S. 201 PPC. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 189 Nazir.
Unconcealed weapon. Recovery of crime weapon lying openly and unconcealed in the house of a person other than the accused, held, evidence of recovery doubtful. (SC) 1968 SCMR 161 Mehr Ali.
Crime empty recovery memo, not prepared at the spot, proves that the recovery was concocted by fictitious memo and receiving upon it thumb impressions of witnesses. Such doubtful nature of recovery renders valueless the report that the crime empty was fired from the rifle. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 460. Basir etc.
Safeguards in section 165, Cr.P.C. are mandatory and not directory and must be carried out immediately or as nearly as they can be in the exigencies and circumstances of each case. Unless this is done the search is without jurisdiction and bad in law. Police officer not complying with provisions of section 165, Cr.P.C. is not acting with due care and attention. Resistance to illegal search no offence. (DB) 48 Cr.LJ 161 Emp v. Muhammad Shah 228 Ind. Case. 233.
Recovery memo prepared at police station and article sealed and packed also at police station. Such recovery held doubtful. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 478 Hamzo etc.
Mere pointing out of dead body of deceased in absence of any other evidence connecting the accused with the crime establishes no case against the accused. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 435. Sultan.
By the accused is not per se good enough to constitute offence under section 201/34, PPC 1970 P.Cr.LJ 165. Ghulam Hussain.
Pointing out of dead body. No search made at the place where dead body lay and in fact dead body already found out. Subsequent recovery of dead body on pointing out by accused, held not made by a person having exclusive knowledge. Hence, it is not a circumstance against the accused. (DB) PLD 1971 Kar. 299. Gulab Khan.
Pointation by several accused. Recovery at the pointation of several accused jointly is not admissible in evidence. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1464. Abdul Ghani etc.
Dead body recovered from accused's house, is not sufficient for proving that (i) the deceased was killed by the accused, or (ii) deceased was killed in the manner and the circumstances as deposed by the prosecution. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 460. Bashir Ahmed etc.
Discovery of Toka from unattended place on pointing out of accused not relied on where memo attested by interested witnesses. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 166. Mushtaq Ahmad.
Recovery blood-stained dagger from a place accessible to others. Convictions for murder merely because a blood-stained dagger case recovered at his instance is not safe. 1984 SCMR 560. Muhammad Boota etc.
Place accessible to others. Crime weapons recovered from Toka of a village a place visited by hundreds of people or place jointly owned by the accused with others. Evidence is not satisfactory. (DB) PLD 1967 Kar. 612. State v. Ahmad Ali. 1978 P.Cr.LJ 175. Maqbool Ahmad.
Place of recovery easily accessible and recovery of spear not affected for some days after the arrest of the accused, held, recovery doubtful. 1985 SCMR 165. Muhammad Niaz Khan.
Production by accused of incriminating articles is not unnatural when the accused get themselves produced before the police through some respectables and produced incriminating articles themselves. They do it in order to avoid rigours of police investigation and police pressure on themselves and their relatives. (SC) PLD 1967 SC 217. Sardar Ali PLD 1965 SC 522. Nawab etc.
Recovery on pointation; by accused of chhuri from a field, which had already been searched by police officials and P.Ws. held, possibility cannot be excluded that P.Ws. or police officials might have placed the chhuri in the field. (DB) PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 36 State v. Mushtaq.
Discovery at the instance of 3rd person when accused stated to the police that he had given weapon of offence to that 3rd person. Held, such recovery does not implicate the accused. (DB) 1978 P.Cr.LJ 458. Saleem Pervaiz.
Recovery of crime weapon which matched the empty found on the spot is not enough to convict the accused in the absence of any other evidence. (DB) PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 260. Muhammad Ashraf.
Recovery of empties not mentioned in elaborate FIR. Accused alleged fabrication of empties after recovery of gun. Possibility of fabriation not ruled out. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 518. Talib Hussain v. Fazal Hussain. PLJ 1976 SC 352.
Dagger dug out by the accused from his own house, the presumption would be that the accused had kept it there. (DB) PLD 1988 Lah. 676. Muhammad Ijaz NLR 1988 Cr. 685.
Accused arrested with weapon of offence immediately after occurrence held, such recovery inspires confidence and rings true. PLJ 1988 Cr.C. (Kar.) 498. Bachal.
Public access. Article recovered from a place where public generally has access cannot be said to have been recovered from the possession of the accused. PLD 1976 Lah. 28. Muhammad Ali etc.
Discovery of stolen property from public place at the pointing out of accused is not enough to hold such accused guilty that he concealed the articles knowing them to be stolen. (DB) PLD 1966 Dacca 98. Manjit Fakir.
Recovery of klashnikov from the house of appellant's father-in-law, wrapped in a bed. No evidence to show that the room from where klashnikov was recovered was under the control and power of the appellant. Appellant acquitted. (DB) PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Kar.) 406, Arshad Nadeem.
Recovery from open place. Recovery witness appearing to be a chance witness accompanying Police for recovery purposes and recovery made from an open place. Not relied upon. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 28. Muhammad Ayub etc.
Recoveries from unattended place and without lock deserve no credence. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1137 Mst. Sardaran.
Recovery from a place not owned by the accused. The mere fact that a person points out a place where stolen property is concealed, if that place is not his own, does not justify the Court in drawing the conclusion that the person pointing out the stolen article had received or retained it, nor does it mean that he was a party to the act of concealment. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ (1942 Lah.) 268. Das Ram v. Emp. 197 Ind. Case. 801.
Place of recovery neither owned nor in possession of the appellant. Appellant acquitted for offence u/S. 13-XX-65 Arms Ordinance in respect of Klashnikov. (DB) NLR 1994 Cr. 281, Iftikhar etc.
Place of recovery not exclusively in possession or knowledge of the accused. Recovery held doubtful. PLJ 1973 Lah. 478. Muhammad Shafi.
Possession not exclusive. Meaning of word "possession" depends on context in which the word is used. Mental element is essential for possession in criminal statutes. "Possession" in Explosive Substance Act, 1908 refers to actual possession with guilty knowledge that the article possessed is incriminating one. Explosive substance recovered from a room shared by three persons. No evidence to prove as to who brought incriminating substance in the room and who was aware of it. Held, prosecution failed to prove its case u/S. 5 of the Act. (SC) PLJ 1978 SC 173. State v. Qazi Pervaiz. PLD 1978 SC 64.
Recovery from joint possession of a gun from place jointly occupied by appellant and co-accused. Co-accused also attributed firing of a shot, held, appellant cannot be said to be in exclusive possession of the gun. Recovery not proved. PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Kar.) 334. Umar.
Joint recovery of blood stained chhuris at the instance of 3 accused, held, no reliance can be placed on joint recovery in absence of particularising each accused. (DB) PLD 1989 Kar. 466. Nazeer etc. = PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Kar.) 525.
Joint possession. A dagger was found in a room in a house, jointly owned by father and his son. There was no evidence to show that either of them was aware of the existence of it. Held, that neither of them could be convicted under section 19 of the Arms Act. (DB) 3 Cr.LJ 71. Emp. v. Sher Zaman.
House jointly owned. Recovery of incriminating articles from a house in possession of many persons. None can be held responsible. (DB) ILR 26 Lah. 137. The Crown v. Santa Singh.
Joint and simultaneous recoveries by accused are of no value. (DB) 1960 P. Cr.LJ 371. Muhammad Afzal etc.
Confessional Statement under section 27 of Evidence Act not admissible when it is made before a person is accused of any offence. It is also not admissible when made after the crime articles have been discovered. 48 Cr.LJ 200 Chetu v. Crown. 28 Ind. Case. 334.
Discovery and confession. The words of section 162, Cr.P.C. are plainly wide enough to exclude any confession made to a Police Officer in course of investigation whether a discovery is made or not. Section 162 is confined to statements made to a police officer in course of an investigation. Section 27, Evidence Act seems to be a proviso to Section 26, Evidence Act, which includes any statements made by a person while in custody of the police and appears to apply to such statements to whomsoever made, e.g., to a fellow prisoner, or doctor, or a visitor. Such statements are not covered by Sec. 162, Cr.P.C. (PC) AIR 1939 PC 47. Pakalanarayan v. Emp.
Evidence Act, Sections 25 and 27. Discovery; Portion of statement leading to discovery of fact. Test for admissibility Court is bound to avoid a result which defeats provisions of section 25, Evidence Act. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Quetta) 109 State v. Jamil Iqbal.
Discovery in consequence of information received from accused. First informant informing Police of discovery of skeleton. Accused after arrest leading the Police to place where skeleton lay. Held, such discovery not made in consequence of information received from accused, hence not admissible under section 27 of Evidence Act, (SC) PLD 1976 SC 404. Abdul Sattar. PLJ 1976 SC 258.
Possession from taxi-cab. (Section 61/1/14, Excise Act). Mere recovery of chairs from back seat of a taxi-cab vacated by a passenger on signal being given by raiding party to stop is not sufficient to convict taxi-driver for the offence. The taxi-driver could not have known that the passenger was carrying chairs. (SC) 1971 SCMR 404. Nazir Hussain.
Lantern not recovered by Police when it was said to be burning at night at the time of incident. Non-production of lantern does not affect the oral evidence. (DB) PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 116. Misri Khan.
Identification of recovered articles. The mere claiming of the recovered articles before police is not of any use. These should have been kept with other similar articles and then got identified before a Magistrate specially when no special marks are on these articles. (SC) 1977 SCMR 457 (468). Muhammad Rafiq.
For Recovery of narcotics see Prohibition Order, 1979.
For recovery of Weapons see crime Articles also.