Concept Of “Zero FIR” – You Can File An FIR Anywhere!

There is a concept of “Zero-FIR”. It means that a FIR can be filed in any police station (i.e.: irrespective of place of incident/jurisdiction) and the same can be later transferred to the appropriate Police Station. However policemen usually deny knowing about “Zero FIR” and direct the complainant to concerned Police Station.”

Concept of Zero FIR: Explained

Empowers police to proceed with a case where FIR has been filed within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Police Station where the incident occurred.

So what about FIRs which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Police Station?

Looking at the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, if FIR is not filed within territorial jurisdiction of a concerned Police Station, the Station House-in-Charge (SHO) of that particular Police Station cannot proceed with further investigation of the case and the FIR should be filed with a Police Station which has territorial jurisdiction to act over the case. But practically it is not always possible to adhere to the exact wordings of Criminal Procedure Code

For example: If a person visits Police Station informing the police that his friend was murdered on the road (cognizable offence). Incidences like this require immediate action on part of the police (like collecting samples, getting information from eye witnesses, etc.); in such a situation police cannot excuse themselves saying that the case does not fall within their jurisdiction. This will hamper the very objective of the police force that is ‘to maintain law and order’. But at the same time it is mandatory to adhere to statutory regulations, so after investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report and forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and must also submit all the materials including copy of FIR, collected sample of evidence and detailed report of the inquiry done till the date the case is transferred to the concerned Police Station.

The Supreme Court held that, Police can investigate the case, which does not fall under their jurisdiction.

Can a party take undue advantage of filing a Zero FIR?

Yes a party can exploit the provisions of Zero FIR. The main reason that can lead to undue advantage in case of Zero FIR is that outcome of criminal case mainly depends on the preliminary investigation carried out at the beginning of the case.

Transferring the FIR at the later stage may adversely affect the case as the opposite party may file an FIR at the Police Station of its choice and by getting the investigation report made in their favor.

Other drawback of filing a Zero FIR is that Police Station not having territorial jurisdiction over the case, may lodge the FIR for satisfaction of the complainant, but may immediately transfer the FIR to the concerned Police Station without making any preliminary inquiry in the case.

What happens where there are multiple territorial jurisdictions?

Example: A woman is mentally harassed for dowry in Karachi(place where she stayed with her husband and in-laws) and is also physically tortured at Hyderabad(where her parents stay) where she finally succumbed to death.

This is an instance of continuing offence. There is provision under Criminal Procedure Code which expands the horizon of territorial jurisdiction where FIR can be lodged at both the places i.e. either at Hyderabador at Karachi. The concept of continuing offence is different from that of Zero FIR because in the case of continuing offence, there is no need of transferring the FIR from one place to another place as the alleged offence took place at both the places unlike in the case of Zero FIR.

Legal Reference
2010 CLC 258 Lahore

Classifications
of Law
There are many ways to classify laws. We will discuss two of them. To classify means to put types of law into distinct categories (or buckets). Envision two buckets side by side. A law may be the type that goes in the first bucket or the second. Let’s look at some classification buckets.

4.1 Substantive Law or Procedural Law

Substantive or Procedural
The first way to classify law is substantive or procedural. That is, a law belongs in the substantive bucket (because it is a substantive law) or in the procedural bucket (because it is a procedural law). A substantive law is a law that creates and controls the rights and duties of parties. General examples include the laws regarding torts (see chapter 15), contracts (see chapter 18), and real property (see chapter 25). A specific example of a substantive law is a law prohibiting trespassing on another’s property. Why? Because such a law creates and defines trespassing and puts would-be trespassers on notice regarding the liability (if it is civil trespassing) or punishment (if it is criminal trespassing) that they face for violating the law.

A procedural law, on the other hand, is a law that creates and controls the process of enforcing the rights and duties under substantive law. General examples include the rules of evidence, jurisdiction, and pleading and practice (which are referred to as either civil procedure or criminal procedure, depending on the type of proceeding). We will discuss civil procedure (i.e., steps in a civil case) in chapter 9. A specific example of a procedural law is a statute of limitations. A statute of limitations is a statute (see chapter 5) that creates a time limit for bringing a civil case (i.e., filing a lawsuit) or a criminal case (i.e., initiating a prosecution); typically, the time limit is measured from the date of the event giving rise to the lawsuit or prosecution. This means that in personal injury cases, for instance, a lawsuit must be brought within a certain period of time after the injury occurred; otherwise, it will be time-barred. The case could be very strong substantively; but that is immaterial because a court will dismiss the case on procedural grounds.

4.2 Civil Law or Criminal Law

Civil or Criminal
A second way to classify law is civil or criminal. That is, a law belongs in the civil bucket (because it is a civil law) or in the criminal bucket (because it is a criminal law). Civil law is the law of private rights and duties. As with substantive law, general examples include the laws regarding torts (see chapter 15), contracts (see chapter 18), and real property (see chapter 25). A specific example of a civil law is a law providing that all contracts for the sale of real property must be in writing. Why is it a civil law? Because it deals with duties between private parties; and any violation of it is a wrong between the parties, not a wrong against the whole community. Criminal law, on the other hand, is the law of public rights and duties; put another way, it is the law that creates and controls wrongs committed against the whole community. Criminal law violations are called crimes. Specific examples include laws against assault, burglary, and robbery (see chapter 14). There are many differences between civil law and criminal law, including concerns, party bringing the case, burdens of proof, and goals. We will spend a lot of space discussing these differences, in part because it is easy to confuse aspects of the civil law and criminal law. And by gaining a firm grasp of the differences, we will be in a better position to understand fully later material in this text. After discussing the differences, we will then cover the overlap between civil law and criminal law. Concerns. Civil law is concerned with private rights and remedies, that is, the duties that exist among and between persons, organizations, and governments (other than, of course, the duty not to commit crimes). Conversely, criminal law is concerned with public rights and remedies, that is, with wrongs committed against the public or whole community. Party bringing the case. In a civil case, the party bringing the case (i.e., suing) is the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a party who claims to have been injured by the wrongful conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff can be a person, a business or other artificial entity, or a federal, state, or local government entity or agency. The case appears in court documents with the heading Plaintiff v. Defendant; the heading is referred to as a “caption.” In a criminal case, the party bringing the case (i.e., prosecuting), is the government—local, state or commonwealth, or federal. In a state or commonwealth prosecution, the case is normally captioned State (or Commonwealth) v. Defendant; in a federal prosecution, the case is captioned United States v. Defendant.[1] Burdens of proof. The burdens of proof are also different for civil law and criminal law. A burden of proof is a party’s duty to prove a claim or defense to a certain standard. In a typical civil case, the burden of proof that the plaintiff must satisfy is “preponderance of the evidence.” There are other ways of expressing this standard, including “more likely than not,” “by greater than 50% weight,” and “by the greater weight of the evidence.”[2] If the plaintiff does not satisfy its burden during trial, the fact-finder (i.e., the judge or jury, depending on the case) will decide the case in favor of the defendant. In a criminal case, the burden of proof that the prosecution must satisfy is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The defendant is presumed to be not guilty unless the prosecution proves the defendant’s guilt to the reasonable doubt standard. While this standard is impossible to quantify in mathematical terms (unlike in civil law), it does not require the absence of doubt in the minds of the judge or jury. But the judge or jury should find the defendant guilty only if firmly persuaded of the defendant’s guilt based on a fair and full consideration of the evidence presented; there is no reasonable doubt if this is the case.[3] A good way to remember the burdens of proof for civil law and criminal law is by envisioning the scales of justice—

In a civil case, the plaintiff will satisfy the “preponderance of the evidence” burden by placing just enough weight—that is, evidence or proof—on an arm of the scale to tip the scale slightly in the plaintiff’s favor; that is all the weight needed to obtain a civil judgment against a defendant. In a criminal case, however, the government will need to place enough weight on the arm of the scale to make that arm almost touch bottom—that is, enough to satisfy “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Therefore, much more evidentiary weight is needed to obtain a criminal conviction against a defendant. Goals. The goals of civil law and criminal law differ greatly. In civil law, the primary goal is to make an injured party whole, or compensate him for the damage done to him. This is accomplished by awarding either a legal remedy or equitable remedy. The main legal remedy is compensatory damages, which is money. Most plaintiffs bring civil cases seeking money to compensate them for the injury and damage caused by a defendant. For example, in an ordinary auto accident case, an injured driver with a damaged vehicle will sue the other driver who caused the accident. Why? The reason is because the injured driver wants to be made whole. How can the injured driver be made whole? The answer is by obtaining the monies necessary to repair or replace his vehicle, pay his medical bills, and compensate him for lost wages and pain and suffering. In some states, punitive damages are available in rare cases to punish a defendant (which is an occasional goal of civil law). But even in states that allow punitive damages, they are usually limited to certain types of cases or for conduct that involves fraud or malice, or is willful and wanton. There are occasions, however, where the legal remedy of compensatory damages is considered inadequate under the law. In such a case, a plaintiff may instead obtain an equitable remedy. The general rule is that legal remedies are inadequate when a case involves unique or rare personal property or if it involves real property. In simple terms, personal property is every type of property other than real estate; and real property is real estate, which consists of land and things attached to or growing upon the land (e.g., buildings and plants). Because no two pieces of real estate are exactly the same, the law considers real estate unique. We will discuss real property further in chapter 25. So if the legal remedy of monetary damages is inadequate under the law, is an equitable remedy available to a plaintiff? An equitable remedy is a non-monetary remedy based (not surprisingly) on the doctrine of equity, which is the principle of crafting a fair and just outcome when a legal remedy is unavailable, inadequate, or where the strict application of the law would produce an unconscionable result. While there are many equitable remedies, two of the more common types are injunction and specific performance. An injunction is a court order requiring a party to do, or not to do, an act. For example, after finding a corporation liable for patent infringement (see chapter 24), a judge may issue an order enjoining the corporation from further infringing of the patent. Specific performance is a court order requiring a party to perform a contractual duty. For example, a purchaser who paid money for real property may sue the seller seeking the equitable remedy of specific performance if the seller refuses to deliver the deed. The reason is because the purchaser wants the real property and deed, not a refund of monies paid. In nearly every state today, courts of law and equity have merged. This allows plaintiffs to obtain a legal remedy or equitable remedy in the same court. One notable exception is Delaware, where the Superior Court is the general court of law (with judges) and the Court of Chancery is the general court of equity (with chancellors). One reason that numerous corporations are incorporated in Delaware is because of the Court of Chancery and its well-deserved reputation as the pre-eminent court in the world for the resolution of corporate and other fiduciary matters. The Court of Chancery guards vigilantly its limited equity jurisdiction. It will dismiss or transfer cases where a plaintiff uses “‘magic words’ to dress its complaint in the garb of equity”; in dismissing a case in 2008, the Court stated that “one cannot parade a duck around and call it a swan.”[4] Unlike civil law, the primary goal of criminal law is to punish the wrongdoer, that is, the defendant. Depending obviously on the level and severity of the crime, this may be accomplished by the death penalty, imprisonment, probation, or fines. Other goals of criminal law include retribution (i.e., to get-even or payback), deterrence, and rehabilitation. These goals also may be accomplished by the same punishments; in addition, the court may order a convicted defendant to pay restitution (i.e., to pay the victim for the injury or damage caused by the defendant) or place the defendant under a restraining order. A restraining order is a type of injunction; in criminal law, it ordinarily is in the nature of precluding a defendant from coming within a certain distance of or attempting to contact or communicate with the victim. Overlap between civil law and criminal law. You have likely recognized that there is overlap between civil law and criminal law. That is, sometimes a wrongful act can be a violation of civil law and criminal law. Let’s look an example. You may remember or have heard of the O. J. Simpson cases from the 1990s (as opposed to the 2008 case arising out of the infamous Las Vegas hotel-casino room break-in incident). In October 1995, after a lengthy criminal trial, a jury acquitted O. J. Simpson on two charges of murder for causing the deaths of his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. In February 1997 after a civil trial, however, a different jury found O. J. Simpson liable for wrongfully causing the deaths of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Based on its findings of wrongful death, the jury awarded $8.5 million in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages to the victims’ families. How is it possible for O. J. Simpson to be found not guilty in the criminal case, but found liable in the civil case? The reason is because the burdens of proof are different. Recall that the burden in a criminal case is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” while the burden in a civil case is only “preponderance of the evidence.” Also, there is no violation of double jeopardy under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, because a civil case following a criminal case is not considered a second prosecution for the same offense.

Extra-Judicial Confession ( Case Laws )

2008 SCMR 841. Mst. Irshad Bibi V/S Iftikhar & Others

S.302/364/34 PPC. Conviction order based on extra-judicial confession is well if prosecution succeeded in establishing that such statement had been made truly and voluntarily and same was corroborated by circumstantial evidence. Accused had categorically denied the allegation and extra-judicial confession before the prosecution witnesses, in absence of corroboration, was not acceptable. High Court after having taken into consideration material available on record in accordance with law had rightly concluded that the prosecution case was full of doubt and accused were rightly acquitted from the charge of murder.                    LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL REFUSED.

NLR 1995 CrLJ 192. Rizwan Ahmad V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/34 PPC. Accused who made extra-judicial confession before father and brother of deceased, would not be granted bail in a case U/S 302 as this evidence would be sufficient to connect him with murder.                                                                                                                     BAIL REFUSED

1995 PCrLJ 1802. Muhammad Ramzan Butt @ Luboo Butt. V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/460 PPC. Bail should not be withheld as a punishment in cases where extra-judicial confession which is the weakest type of evidence is not supported by any other independent evidence.     BAIL GRANTED

1995 PCrLJ 1804. Sardar Ali V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession made by accused jointly is not admissible.     BAIL GRANTED

NLR 1996 CrLJ 48. Muhammad Shahban etc. V/S The State (Karachi).

S.302/324/34 PPC. Case of accused who is charged on basis of his extra-judicial confession when there is no direct evidence to link with commission of offence, would be a case of further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED

1997 MLD 9. Ikhtiar V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/201 PPC. Accused was arrested on basis of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him with respect to murder of his step-mother before complainant and his companions, but companions of complainant had sworn in affidavits to the effect that accused did not make confessional statement before them. Solitary ingredient of extra-judicial confession of accused, even if taken into account in toto, was not enough to prove as a barrier against accused for his admission to bail.                                             BAIL GRANTED

1997 MLD 1565. Shakeel Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/379/411/34 PPC. Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused was the only material available against him which was not corroborated by any other evidence. Some signs of injuries, according to the witnesses of extra-judicial confession, were apparent on both the hands of accused which could be a corroborative piece of evidence but the accused after his arrest was not got medically examined in this regard. No recovery of churri was effected at the instance of accused. Involvement of accused in the case, thus needed further inquiry.                                                                                         BAIL GRANTED

1997 MLD 2575. Nisar & Others V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Accused were not named in the FIR and none had seen the occurrence. Only evidence against accused was of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by them after three days of the occurrence before the close relatives of the deceased who informed police about the same after more than six months.                                                                                                             BAIL GRANTED

2001 MLD 566.Talib Hussain V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/34 PPC. Blind murder - Benefit of doubt. Extra-judicial confession. Accused was arrested on the statement of prosecution witnesses wherein it was stated that the accused had made extra-judicial confession before them. Validity. Such confession, unless corroborated by some evidence, would be extremely insufficient to warrant conviction. Benefit of doubt was to be extended to accused even at bail stage. BAIL GRANTED

2001 PCrLJ 710. Muhammad Hassan & another V/S The State (Karachi).

S.302/34 PPC. Incident unwitnessed. Witnesses of extra-judicial confession had not disclosed to anybody about the same which itself was a weak evidence requiring strong independent corroboration which was yet to be brought on record by the prosecution. Said witnesses appeared to have been set up in order to make out the prosecution case. Accused had been nominated in the end of the FIR due to suspicion which however strong, could not take place of proof to warrant conviction on a capital charge. Accused at such stage did not appear to be guilty of the offence.                                                                             BAIL GRANTED

NLR 2002 SD 702. Mumtaz Ali V/S The State (Karachi)

S.302 PPC. Statements of complaiaant and other PWs to the effect that accused had announced the murder of deceased would be merely hearsay without independent corroboration. Accused implicated in murder case on such statements released on bail as case against him required further enquiry.             BAIL GRANTED

2004 MLD 1818. Muhammad Yaseen & 2 Others V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302 PPC. Accused were not named in FIR but subsequently complainant in his statement had shown suspicion upon 11 persons including accused persons that they had murdered deceased. During investigation conducted by different police officer, eight co-accused were let off and accused were sent to judicial lock up on the insistence of complainant party. Only evidence available against accused was that they had made extra-judicial confession before the complainant and other witnesses. Doctor in post-mortem examination had not found any external injury on the person of deceased and according to report of chemical examiner no poison was detected in viscera of the deceased. Case of further enquiry.            BAIL GRANTED

2007 MLD 1279.Muhammad Younis @ Macca V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302 PPC. Accused was not named in the FIR rather he was shown as the informer of the presence of the dead-body in a factory. Another accused suspected as murderer of the deceased in the FIR on the basis of strong motive had been exonerated by complainant and he later on had involved the present accused. Complainant, had stated that extra-judicial confession had been made by accused before him and other witnesses admitting that he had killed the deceased after committing rape with her, but the chemical examiner's report did not support the version of the complainant. No other incriminating material was available on record against the accused. Case demanded further probe.                                BAIL GRANTED.

2008 YLR 16. Ali Sher V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/109/34 PPC. Incident was a case of blind murder which was reported to the police through a report made under S.174 CrPC by one who had found dead bodies of two persons. Accused and his co-accused were involved in the case on the basis of statement recorded under S.161 CrPC. whereby it was claimed that accused and his co-accused had made extra-judicial confession of murdering both deceased. Said extra-judicial confession recorded by the police was in the form of a joint statement of all accused. Gun alleged to have been recovered at the instance of accused was not sent to Fire Arm Expert. Evidentiary value of recovery of gun would be open to serious criticism. Case of further inquiry within the meaning of S. 497 CrPC, in circumstances, had been made out in favour of accused. Co-accused had already been released on bail and case of accused was at par with that of said accused.                     BAIL GRANTED.

2008 PCrLJ 1505.. Nazar Hussain V/S The State & another (Lahore)

S.302/34/109 PPC. Accused was not named in FIR but was subsequently involved along with his co-accused through supplementary statement. Supplementary statement of the complainant and the witnesses, showed that accused and his co-accused confessed their guilt before prosecution witnesses. Statement of said witnesses had revealed that all accused confessed their guilt jointly before the said prosecution witnesses, which was not admissible in evidence. Remaining evidence which was last seen and recovery of pistol, prima facie, was not sufficient to establish any offence against accused.                                                           BAIL GRANTED

NLR 2004 SD 818. Dadan @ Dad Muhammad V/S The State (Larkana)

Case of two versions of murder occurrence would be case of further inquiry when accused was not nominated in FIR but implicated in statements of PWs recorded U/S 164 .                             BAIL GRANTED 

2004 SCMR 283. Naseem Malik V/S The State (SC.DB)

S.419/420/468/417/477/109 PPC. Statement of co-accused implicating the accused can be validly taken into consideration while deciding such matters.  BAIL OF CO-ACCUSED CANCELLED.

2006 PCrLJ 1469. Rehmat @ Rahmani & another V/S The State (Lahore)

S.457/380/411 PPC. Delay of two days in lodging FIR. Accused who were involved in the matter on suspicion, had been challaned mainly on the ground that they had made extra-judicial confession before prosecution witnesses. Despite being joint, confessional statement was ditto of FIR. Accused were behind the bars for the last two months and they did not have a previous history of involvement in such like cases.                                                                                                                         BAIL GRANTED 

2 : Appreciation of Evidence

2003 PCrLJ 206. Dilshad Hussain V/S The State (Lahore)

S.295-B & 84 PPC. Art.40 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Appreciation of evidence. Retraced confession in which no other evidence was available on record to prove the charge. Question was as to whether conviction could be recorded on the basis of a retracted confession if there was no other corroborative evidence on record. Not permissible in Islam to inflict punishment on an accused person if he retracted from the confession allegedly made by him. Accused had taken the plea that he was a true Muslim and could not even think of defiling the Holy Quran. Convicting a Muslim on the charge U/S 295-B PPC to imprisonment for life when he had clearly denied the charge and claimed that he was a true Muslim and could not even think of such an act and when the only evidence available with the prosecution was that of extra-judicial confession, would be clearly without any lawful justification. No Muslim could even think of saying or claiming before his fellow Muslim that he had shown any disrespect to the Holy Qur’an, if any one did so such a person could not be in sound mental health. Report opf the Medical Superintendent had lent support to the view that if it was believed that accused had actually made such a statement before the witnesses, he must be suffering from a fit of insanity at that particular time which was covered by S.84 PPC. Prosecution had not been able to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.                                                                                                  ACQUITTAL 

1997 PCrLJ 709. Sheraz Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Only evidence against the accused was his extra-judicial confession made after 2.5 months of the occurrence ................................................................................................................

KLR 1995 CrC 280. Muhammad Saleem V/S The State (Bahawalpur).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession is generally a weak piece of evidence and has to be received with caution. It can only be worthy of credit if (a) it comes from an unimpeachable source and (b) it is corroborated by any piece of credibvle evidence.                                                             ACQUITTAL

1995 PCrLJ 905. Liaquat Ali V/S The State (Lahore DB).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession was weakest type of evidence which required that before it was relied upon, it must be supported by some independent circumstantial evidence coming from an unimpeachable source.

NLR 1995 CrLJ 29. Faiz Baksh V/S The State (Bahawalpur).

S.302 PPC. Sentence of life imprisonment would be unsustainable after court’s findings that no conviction can be made on extra-judicial confession as same is weak type of evidence. (2) Extra-judicial confession made to witnesses who were also witnesses of recovery of crime weapon, would be unreliable. ACQUITTAL

1995 MLD 664. Muhammad Aslam Pervez @ Ghazi V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. One witness of extra-judicial confession was not known to the accused and not in a position to help him while the second was interested being relative of the deceased. Both prosecution witnesses joined investigation late.

1996 MLD 627. Muhammad Anwar V/S The State (Lahore DB).

S.302/34 PPC. S.164 CrPC. Occurrence was unwitnessed event. Extra-judicial confession made in the case appeard to be the outcome of undue influence and was supported by highly interested and inimical witnesses and belied by medical evidence. Wajtakkar evidence did not advance the prosecution case. ACQUITTAL

1996 MLD 909. Shafqat Ali @ Patta V/S The State (Lahore DB).

S.302/34 PPC. Art.38/39/42/43 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Where prescribed formalities which aid in ascertainment of voluntariness of extra-judicial confession were not available, it would not be given that much weight which is accorded to judicial confession. Extra-judicial confession is admissible if material on record could lead to conclusion that it was made voluntarily and was true, its probative value would be the same as that of recorded U/S 164 CrPC. Said confession must be proved by unimpeachable evidence and only be relied upon which its supportive evidence is invulnerable. It would be further unreliable when the words of the maker were not reproduced accurately.                                                                         ACQUITTAL

NLR 1996 SD 388. Muhammad Asghar V/S The State (FSC.DB).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession becomes tainted piece of evidence when a doubt has been created as to whether accused at all had made extra-judicial confession. Very strong independent corroboration for making it basis of conviction would be required.                                                                         ACQUITTAL

NLR 1998 CrLJ 74. Muhammad Naeem V/s The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession becomes unacceptable when dead body was not even identifiable and same was not even detected for a number of days. (2) Conduct of witness of extra-judicial confession in not handing over accused to police or making a report to police casts serious doubt on their veracity and renders extra-judicial confession unreliable. (3) Mere fact that accused was not able to point out any enmity against witnesses of extra-judicial confession would not by itself be sufficient to rely upon their evidence which suffers from inherent defects.                                                                                                 ACQUITTAL

1998 PCrLJ 1941 Sabir V/S The State (Quetta DB).

S.302(b) PPC. Under the Islamic concept of criminal administration of justice, extra-judicial confession has been considered as no evidence for the purpose of awarding punishment to accused.     ACQUITTAL

1998 SCMR 1281. Muhammad Aijaz Ahmed V/S Raja Fahim Fazal & 2 Others (FB).

S.302/34 PPC. No ocular evidence was available to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Unexplained long silence of prosecution witnesses about the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused had made their genuineness doubtful and the same were not corroborated by any independent or unimpeachable circumstances. Prosecution evidence was neither probable nor inspired confidence. Concurrent finding of acquittal by courts below was based on cogent and sound reasons and did not suffer from any impropriety, illegality or infirmity.             LEAVE NOT GRANTED TO COMPLAINANT

2000 SCMR 528. Ziaul Rehman V/S The State (FB).

S.302 PPC. Art.39/40 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Extra-Judicial Confession. Evidence of extra-judicial confession alone without any corroboration was not sufficient to maintain any conviction thereon. One weakpiece of evidence could not corroborate another similar evidence. 2: Accused about a month prior to registration of FIR quarreled with his wife, who thereafter left his house alongwith her brother leaving the two children in the accused custody. Brother of accused’s wife, allegedly went to accused’s house to enquire about the children when allegedly accused made an extra-judicial confession before him admitting to have thrown the children in the canal, thus, causing their death. Such extra-judicial confession was alleged to have been heard by two other witnesses. accused, during investigation led the I.O. in presence of the witnesses to the canal. Nothing incriminating could be recovered from the place. accused, in his statement before the court, denied the allegation and pleaded innocent but neither produced any evidence in his defence nor he made any statement u/s 340(2) crPC. Although there was evidence of extra-judicial confession but that evidence was not corroborated by any other evidence produced by prosecution. Neither the bodies of the children nor any other incriminatory evidence could be recovered by the police. Evidence of pointing out the place of occurrence by the accused, could not be of any consequence to the prosecution as nothing incriminatory was recovered therefrom. Such evidence, in fact, was inadmissible as same could not be considered as exception to Art.39 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Accused had merely pointed out the place to police as being the place where the children had been thrown by him and that pointation had not led to discovery of any fact for the purpose of Art.40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Such evidence could not be relied upon as corroborating evidence.                                                                                                 JUDGEMENT SET-ASIDE

200 SCMR 1634. Nasreen Akhtar V/S The State.

S.302 PPC. Retracted extra-judicial confession. Evidentiary value. Mere fact that co-accused had retracted the extra-judicial confession would not by itself lessen its evidentiary value when the retracted extra-judicial confession had been fully corroborated in material particulars by recovery evidence of crime weapons, medical evidence and opinion of Handwriting Expert. (2) S.164 CrPC. Extra-judicial confession. Retraction... Effect.... Unless such extra-judicial confession of co-accused was corroborated in material particulars, it would not be prudent to base conviction on its strength alone.                                                 APPEAL DISMISSED

2001 PCrLJ 773. Zahid Iqbal V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b) PPC. Retracted extra-judicial confession of the accused alone could not be made the sole basis of his conviction without corroboration which the prosecution had failed to bring on record through any other piece of direct or circumstantial evidence. Prosecution evidence fell short of legal proof required in the case of capital charge to establish the guilt of accused for the murder of the deceased.             ACQUITTAL

2001 MLD 1587. Mst. Robina V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b), 201 & 109 PPC. Case against the accused being that of capital punishment, in such like cases evidence must have come from an unimpeachable source which was missing in the case as there was only extra-judicial confession of the accused and that too before the close relatives of the deceased. Extra-judicial confession was weak type of evidence and capital punishment could not be awarded solely on such evidence.                                                                                                             ACQUITTAL

2001 SCMR 1405. Ziaul Rehman V/S The State (FB)

S.302 PPC. Art.40 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Evidence of extra-judicial confession alone without any corroboration was not sufficient to maintain any conviction thereon. One weak piece of evidence could not corroborate another weak piece of evidence. Accused had merely pointed out the place to the police where he had thrown the children, but the same having not led to the discovery of any fact for the purpose of Art.40 o, such evidence could not be relied upon as corroboratory evidence. Delay of 266 days in filing the petition was condoned as dismissal of appeal for such technical reasons would have caused grave injustice to the accused under the circumstances of the case.                                                                     ACQUITTAL

2001 SCMR 1914. Mst. Robina Bibi V/S The State (FB).

S.302/392 PPC. Art.39 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. S.164 CrPC. Retracted extra-judicial confession. Such confession can be used against maker thereof, if it is corroborated by other evidence.                                                                                 LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

2002 PCrLJ 1245. Iftikhar @ Kali & 2 Others V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/392/34 PPC. Evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to judicial confession of co-accused inspired confidence. Evidence of extra judicial confession though a weak piece of evidence, but if it was corroborated by other independent sources, same could be relied upon. Pistol recovered from co-accused matched with empty recovered from the spot. Recovery of empty, pistol and its matching with weapon and medical evidence had corroborated extra-judicial confession of co-accused and that corroboration had proved case against said co-accused without any shadow of doubt. Conviction and sentence awarded to co-accused by trial court was maintained.                                                         CONVICTION MAINTAINED

NLR 2002 SD 723. Mulazim Hussain & Others V/S The State (Lahore DB)

S.302/109 PPC. Prosecution would fail to prove its case when it fails to bring on record any direct evidence connecting accused with commission of murder and has tried to connect accused by procuring/securing evidence of conspiracy as well as of extra-judicial confession.             CONVICTION SET-ASIDE.

2002 SCMR 441. Mehrban V/S Muhammaxd Ramzan & another (FB)

S.302 PPC. Accused was only alleged to have made an extra-judicial confession which was denied by him. No other material was available on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Reasons advanced for the acquittal of accused were valid and cogent which required no intereference by Supreme Court.                                                                                                             LEAVE REFUSED

2003 PCrLJ 753 , Irfan  Ali  V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302(b) appreciation of evidence witnesses of extra judicial confession allegedly made by accused were closely related to the deceased who had neither apprehended him nor produced him before the Police, rather their statements were recorded by the Investigation officer after 15/20 days conduct of the said witnesses being most unnatural, evidence of extra-judicial confession could not be relied upon pistol recovered at the behest of accused was his licensed one and the report of the Fire-arm Expert was only to the effect that it was in working condition No crime empty was recovered from the spot No other evidence was available on record to connect the accused with the commission of the crime accused was acquitted in circumstances. 

2003 SCMR 1070. Muhammad Kamran & another V/S The State (SC.FB)

S.302(b)/377 PPC. Extra-judicial confession. A three fold proof is required to make the extra-judicial confession the basis of conviction, firstly that in fact it was made, secondly that it was voluntarily made and thirdly that it was truly made.                                                            ACQUITTAL

2003 SCMR 1385.Rasab Khan V/S The State (SC.FB)

S.302(b) & 377 PPC.S.12 Zina Ord. Accused was convicted for committing murder of two minors and sodomy with them, Incident was unwitnessed one. No one had seen the minors in the company of accused prior to the incident. Only evidence against the accused was his retracted extra-judicial confession said to have been made efore two prosecution witnesses. Said prosecution witnesses were neither respectables of the locality nor enjoyed such a commanding position so as to have an access to or influence on the police or on the relatives of the deceased to get pardon for the accused and in such a situation, as to what prompted the accused to confess his guilt voluntarily without any duress, coersion or inducement left room for consideration. Old enmity existed between the accused and the prosecution witnesses. Unnatural and inhuman conduct was shown by the said witnesses. Evidence of said two prosecution witnesses, in  circumstances, required strict scrutiny and was not worth reliance. Prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused, as such his appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court.                                    CONVICTION SET-ASIDE.

NLR 2004 CrLJ 1109. Muhammad Zahid & Others V/S The State (Lahore DB)

S.302/34 PPC. Extra-judicial confession made by accused in police custody before complainant is not worthy of any credit.                                                                                         ACQUITTAL

NLR 2004 SD 392. Muhammad Saleem @ Nahna & another V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/34 PPC. It is needless to mention that joint extra-judicial confession of accused persons carries no value in eye of law. Extra-judicial confession of accused which is found to have been manoeuvred against accused would have no evidentiary value in support of prosecution case as regards culpability of accused persons.                                                                                               ACQUITTAL 

2005 SCMR 277.Wazir Muhammad & another V/S The State (Shariat Appellate Bench SC)

S.302/34 PPC. Extra-judicial confession around which the entire prosecution case revolved was made by the accused while being investigated by the police at the police station before a stock witness which was not worthy of credence and the question of its corroboration was immaterial. No direct evidence was available against the accused. Even convincing, forthright or reliable circumstantial evidence had not come on record on the basis of which accused could be convicted.                                    ACQUITTAL

2006 SCMR 463. Zafar Iqbal & Others V/S The State (SC.DB)

S.302/34 PPC. Courts below had based the conviction of accused only on their joint extra-judicial confession, which was defective in law and was not corroborated by any other piece of evidence. Prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused.                                                            ACQUITTAL

2006 SCMR 1846. Lal Khan V/S The State (SC.DB)

S.302/34 PPC. Extra-judicial confession. Trial court on the basis of evidence of the daughter, post mortem report and extra-judicial confession of widow convicted and sentenced all three accused for murder of deceased. Sentence maintained by High Court. Validity. Extra-judicial confession of widow being highly doubtful was not reliable as the prosecution witness before whom she allegedly confessed her guilt, did not inform complainant or any other person about her confession, before registration of the case. Probably investigating officer with a view to strengthen prosecution case subsequently manipulated such piece of evidence.                                                                                                    ACQUITTAL.

2007 MLD 1561.Abdul Latif & another V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b) PPC. Accused initially was not named in the FIR. Different sets of accused were investigated during the investigation. Services of foot trackers and sniffing dogs were also hired to trace the murderers of the deceased. Accused was involved in the case after about nine months of the occurrence on the basis of evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by him at a bus stop before two prosecution witnesses, who had neither apprehended the accused nor informed the complainant or the Investigating Officer about the same at that time. Said witnesses after 13 days of the extra judicial confession got their statements recorded U/S 161 CrPC and uptil that stage the accused was not even suspected to be the murderers. No reliance therefore, could be placed on the evidence of said extra judicial confession.                    ACQUITTAL.

2007 SCMR 58. Faisal V/S The State

S.302(b)/34 PPC. Allegation against accused was that he committed murder of deceased who used to reside with the former in a shop. Complainant, real brother of deceased, allegedly received message from another prosecution witness to reach at a certain place and on complainant's arrival there along with other witnesses, accused confessed his guilt, stating that he committed murder of deceased as the latter insisted accused for sodomy. Trial court convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. High Court, on appeal, maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to accused. Validity. Extra judicial confession of accused coupled with the facts that accused went to witness of confession in early hours of the morning, leaving his duty place without informing his officers, recovery of dead body from place of residence both of accused and deceased, absence of evidence of plea of alibi, concealment of his bag at roof of bathroom of mosque were pieces of evidence which stood established against him in courts below. No illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence was found in a concurrent findings of guilt recorded against accused by the courts below. LEAVE   TO APPEAL REFUSED.

2007 SCMR 162.Shafqat Abbas V/S The State

S.302(b)/324/34 PPC. Alleged disclosure made by one of the accused before Investigating officer in presence of prosecution witness during interrogation, involving other accused in commission of offence, not leading to discovery of a particular relevant fact or incriminating material was inconsequential and inadmissible. By extending benefit of doubt to accused, they had been found entitled to earn acquittal.    APPEAL ALLOWED.

2007 SCMR 518. Sheraz Tufail V/S The State (SC.Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction)

S.302(b)/324/201/377 PPC. S.12 Zina Ordinance 1979. Extra-judicial confession. Accused was convicted after trial and sentenced to imprisonment for life, which was maintained by Federal Shariat Court. Plea raised by accused was that both the courts had wrongly convicted him on the basis of circumstantial evidence produced by prosecution in shape of extra-judicial confession. Validity--- Both the courts below had given finding that accused had made confessional statement voluntarily before his own nearest relative who appeared as prosecution witness. Confession of accused was also corroborated with other pieces of evidence recovered during investigation. Conviction could be awarded on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone. Both the courts below had convicted the and sentenced the accused after proper appreciation of evidence on record. Concurrent conclusions arrived at by courts below could not be interfered by Supreme Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.203-F(2-B) of the constitution.                             LEAVE REFUSED.

2007 SCMR 714. Gul Sadbar V/S Malik-Ud-Din & another (SC. Shariat Appellate Bench)

S.302(b) PPC. S.10(3) Zina Ord. Contact of the accused with the witnesses of the extra judicial confession was  most natural being the only way to his survival. Extra judicial confession made by accused sounded quite natural which was further supported by the fact that he was produced before the police by the same witnesses.                            ACCUSED ACQUITTED FROM THE CHARGE U/S 10(3).

NLR 2007 SD 262.Ahmad Baksh V/S The State SC. Larger Bench)

S.302(b) PPC. Evidence of complainant, extra-judicial confession of accused and recovery of dead body of deceased at pointation of accused would be sufficient to establish murder charge against accused when defence plea that accused killed deceased as he suspected her to be lady of bad character remained unsubstantiated.                                                     CONVICTION MAINTAINED.

NLR 2007 SD 483.Sheraz Tufail V/S The State (SC. Shariat Appellate Bench)

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession which is corroborated by medical evidence and Chemical Examiner's report can be made basis for recording conviction under S.302 PPC. Conviction/sentence recorded against accused on extra-judicial confession duly corroborated by medical evidence and chemical examiner's report upheld by Supreme Court.    (2)    Extra-judicial confession made by accused to his close relative cannot be brushed aside as not inspiring confidence when it is corroborated by medical evidence and chemical examiner's report.         (3)    Conviction with life imprisonment recorded by trial court and affirmed by Federal Shariat Court against accused under S. 302(b) on basis of extra-judicial confession, recoveries of robbed articles from possession of accused, medical evidence and chemical examiner's report upheld by Supreme Court as unexceptionable and not open to interference.                                            CONVICTION UPHELD.

2008 YLR 606. Muhammad Ramzan @ Dhurla V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b) PPC. Prosecution case hinged on the testimony of one of the prosecution witnesses who had found a skeleton and in those presence accused had confessed their guilt. No other evidence was available to connect accused with the occurrence. In absence of recovery of any empty, recovery of pistol from accused was of no consequence. Notyhing was on the record to show that deceased had sustained any injury with sharp-edged weapon. Recovery of hatchet, in circumstances was also un-consequential. Evidence of extra-judicial confession was a weak type of evidence which was normally fabricated in cases which were unwitnessed. Extra-judicial confession of accused being joint, could not be treated as a legal evidence. Prosecution having miserably failed to bring home the charge to accused,.                      ACQUITTAL.

2008 MLD 1542. Farooq Ahmed & another V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b) PPC. Witnesses of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused had neither tried to cause his arrest nor they had any authority to help him and confessional statement of accused, therefore, could neither be relied upon nor the same could be used against his co-accused who had been implicated therein.             ACQUITTAL

2009 PCrLJ 26.  Shaukat Ali V/S The State (Lahore

S.460/396 PPC. Art.39 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. S.103 CrPC. Primarily none of the accused was nominated in the FIR and only their description were given therein, but later on complainant had nominated the accused in his supplementary statement on the basis of his suspicion, who after arrest, confessed their gult. Said confession made by the accused in custody of police was inadmissible in view of Art.39 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat.                                                         ACQUITTAL

NLR 2007 SD 361. Amanullah & another V/S The State (FSC.DB)

S.10(4) Zina Ord. 1979. S.302(b) PPC.  Extra-judicial confession is rightly regarded as a weak piece of evidence. In absence of any other satisfactory evidence, it is to be thoroughly examined with utmost care and caution. It should be supported by convincing independent corroboration and fat that it was truly and voluntarily made should also be ascertained. Held: In present case, extra judicial confession by two accused met with required standard and were rightly believed by trial court.   (2)    Extra judicial confession which finds corroboration from recoveries would be reliable piece of evidence.        CONVICTION UPHELD.

2006 SCMR 231.Sajid Mumtaz & others V/S Basharat & Others (SC.FB)

S.164 CrPC. court before acting upon a retraced extra-judicial confession must inquire into all material points and surrounding circumstances to satisfy itself fully that the confession cannot but be true. As an extra-judicial confession is not a direct evidence, it must be corroborated in material particulars before being made the basis of conviction. Status of the person before whom the extra-judicial confession is made must be kept in view. Joint judicial confession cannot be used against either of accused. Extra-judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence which can easily be procured, whenever direct evidence is not available. Exercise of utmost care and caution has alw;ays been the rule prescribed the Supreme Court in such cases. Motivating factors for a person guilty of offence entailing capital punishment to make a confession generally are (i) to boast off, (ii) to ventilate the suffocating conscience and (iii) to seek help when actually trapped by investigation from a third person who is authoritative, socially or officially. Extra-judicial confessions have almost become a norm when the prosecution cannot otherwise succeed. When the Investigating Officer fails to properly investigate the case, he resorts to padding and concocions like extra-judicial confession, which by now have become the signs of incompetent investigation. Judicial mi8nd, therefore, before relying upon such weak type of evidence, capable of being effortlessly procured, must ask a few questions, like why the accused should at all confess, what is the time lag between the occurrence and the confessionb, whether the accused had been fully trapped during investigation before making the confession, what is the nature and gravity of the offence involved, what is the relationship or friendship of the witnesses with the maker of confession and what above all is the position or authority held by the witness.         LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL REFUSED

2005 SCMR 1270.Muhammad Irfan V/S Rana Muhammad Afzal (SC.FB)

S.308(2) PPC. No factual or legal infirmity could be pointed out in the impugned acquittal of accused by the High Court. Killing of the deceased had gone unwitnessed. One witness of the extra-judicial confession allegedly madeb by accused had refused to support the prosecution case. Other witness of the said confession was a police officer and the confession made in his presence was not admissible. Conviction also could not be safely based on the extra-judicial confession alone. Contention that in view of the affidavit of the complainant petitioner forgiving the accused the latter having sought pardon had impliedly confession his guilt, was fallacious.                                                                 LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED.

PLD 1997 Karachi 311. Muhammad Akram Shaikh V/S The State (DB).

S.408/468 PPC. S.164 CrPC. Art.37 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Extra-judicial confession made by accused to respectable person  voluntarily when he is not in police custody can be made a basis for his conviction.

NLR 1996 SD 159. Abdul Majeed V/S The State (FSC.DB).

S.10(3) Zina Ord. Conviction/sentence for zina-bil-jabr based on extra-judicial confession and recovery evidence which are found to be unreliable, would be unsustainable and liable to be set-aside. ACQUITTAL

2004 MLD 910  Muhammad Yousuf V/S Muhammad Idrees & Others (Lahore DB)

S. 164—Confession --- Extra-judicial Confession—Essential ingredients—Four ingredients are essential to believe an extra-judicial confession--- Firstly, that ther extra-judicial confession was in fact made; Secondly, that it was voluntarily made, thirdly, that it was truly made and fourthly that the motivating force behind it was proved, because an accused cannot be believed to open his mouth with regard to the performance of his criminal acts unless and until there is a reason behind it.                                          ACQUITTAL

NLR 2008 SD 248. Muhammad Asim, etc./ V/S The State (Lahore)

S. 302 PPC. Joint extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence. It is inadmissible in evidence and would bbe ruled out of consideration.            ACQUITTAL

2008 MLD 1236. Muhammad Nazir & Others V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b)/34 & 392 PPC. Benefit of doubt. Matter was reported to the police two days after disappearance of the deceased on recovery of his dead body. Nobody was named in the FIR and nobody had witnessed the occurrence. Dead body was not recovered on the pointation of accused. No witness had seen the deceased last in the company of accused. Witnesses of extra judicial confession allegedly made by accused, had made contradictory statements and they have not spoken the truth either before the IO or before the Court. Said witnesses did not inform the police or the complainant for seven or eight days about the confession, which was ruled out of consideration. Stolen sheep were not recovered from the Haveli of some of accused and their colour, ages and sex shown in the memos of recovery being almost similar had cast doubt about the recoveries. All the lin ks in the chain of circumstantial evidence were missing.                        ACQUITTAL

ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کیا ہے اور کیسے کیا جاتا ہے؟

ہر انسان کا ڈی این اے مختلف ہوتا ہے. ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کے مدد سے انسان کے بارے میں مکمل معلومات حاصل کی جا سکتی ہیں.

ڈی این اے کیا ہے؟

ڈی این اے یعنی کہ ڈی آکسی رائبو نیوکلیک ایسڈ انسانوں اور تمام جانداروں کے جسم میں پایا جانے والا وراثتی مادہ ہے۔ انسانی جسم کی اکائی سیل یونی خلیہ ہوتی ہے۔ اس خلیے کے درمیان میں نیوکلئیس پایا جاتا ہے جس کے اندر ڈی این اے ہوتا ہے۔ انسانی جسم کے تمام خلیوں میں ایک جیسا ہی ڈی این اے پایا جاتا ہے۔ ہر انسان کا ڈی این اے دوسرے انسان سے مختلف ہوتا ہے۔

ہر انسان اپنے ڈی این اے کا پچاس فیصد حصہ اپنی والدہ سے وصول کرتا ہے اور بقیہ پچاس فیصد والد سے۔ ان دونوں ڈی این اے کے مخصوص مرکب سے انسان کا اپنا ڈی این اے بنتا ہے۔ ڈی این اے میں انسان کے بارے میں سب معلومات ہوتی ہیں مثلاً اس کی جنس، بالوں کا رنگ، آنکھوں کا رنگ، سونے کے اوقات، عمر اور جسمانی ساخت وغیرہ۔ اس کے علاوہ اس انسان کو کون کون سی بیماریاں لاحق ہیں، یہ بھی اس کے ڈی این اے سے معلوم کیا جا سکتا ہے۔

ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کیسے کیا جاتا ہے؟

جس شخص کا بھی ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ مقصود ہو اس کا بال،خون، ہڈی اور گوشت یا ان میں سے کسی ایک چیز کا نمونہ لیا جاتا ہے۔ سب سے پہلے انسانی خلیے میں سے ڈی این اے الگ کیا جاتا ہے اور پھر پولیمیریز چین ری ایکشن نامی طریقے کی مدد سے اس ڈی این اے کی لاکھوں کاپیاں بنا لی جاتی ہیں۔ ان لاکھوں کاپیوں کی مدد سے ڈی این اے کی جانچ بہتر طریقے سے ہو سکتی ہے۔ ڈی این اے کو جانچنے کے بعد ڈی این اے فنگر پرنٹ بنایا جاتا ہے۔ دو مختلف نمونوں کے ڈی این اے فنگر پرنٹ میں مماثلت دیکھ کر ان میں کسی تعلق کا تعین کیا جا سکتا ہے۔

حادثات کی صورت میں جب لاش کی شناخت بالکل نا ممکن ہو تب ڈی این کے ذریعے ہی شناخت عمل میں لائی جاتی ہے۔ ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کی مدد سے جانچا جاتا ہے کہ اس لاش کا ڈی این اے کس خاندان سے مل رہا ہے۔ ڈی این اے میں موجود جینیٹک کوڈ کے تقابلی جانچ سے معلوم کیا جاسکتا ہے کہ دو مختلف اشخاص میں کوئی خونی رشتہ ہے کہ نہیں ا۔سی لیے جھلسی ہوئی یا ناقابل شناخت لاشوں کے ڈی این اے نمونے لے کر دعویٰ دار لواحقین کے نمونوں سے ملائے جاتے ہیں۔ اگر جینیٹک کوڈ ایک جیسے ہوں تو خونی رشتہ ثابت ہو جاتا ہے اور لاش لواحقین کے حوالے کر دی جاتی ہے۔

ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کے بعد ابہام کی بالکل گنجائش نہیں ہوتی۔ پاکستان میں فرانزک لیب، فرانزک سائنس دان اور ماہر عملے کی کمی کے باعث اس ٹیسٹ کو انجام دینے میں کافی مشکلات کا سامنا رہتا ہے اور اس کو مکمل ہونے میں ہفتہ بھی لگ جاتا ہے۔

ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کیوں کیا جاتا ہے؟

ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کے چند عام مقاصد درج ذیل ہیں۔

ولدیت ثابت کرنے کے لیے

اگر یہ جاننا ہو کہ کسی انسان کے حقیقی والدین کون ہیں تو اس انسان کا ولدیت کا دعویٰ کرنے والوں کے ساتھ ڈی این اے میچ کر کے دیکھا جاتا ہے۔ اگر دونوں کے ڈی این اے مماثلت ہو تو ولدیت کا دعویٰ درست قرار پاتا ہے۔

مجرم کی شناخت کے لیے

ڈی این اے کی مدد سے مجرم کی شناخت بھی آسانی سے کی جا سکتی ہے۔ اگر جائے وقوع سے مجرم کا بائیولوجیکل نمونہ ملے تو اس کا ڈی این اے حاصل کر کے مکمل رپورٹ مرتب کر لی جاتی ہے۔ اس ڈی این اے کو اس خاص کیس میں نامزد ملزمان کے ڈی این اے سے میچ کرکے مجرم کی نشاندہی کی جا سکتی ہے۔

جین تھیراپی

اگر کسی خاندان میں کوئی مخصوص بیماری ہو تو وہ اپنے بچوں کی پیدائش سے پہلے ڈی این اے ٹیسٹ کی مدد سے جان سکتے ہیں کہ ان کے بچے میں بھی یہ بیماری ہوگی یا نہیں۔

جینیٹک جینیالوجی

اگر کوئی اپنے آبائو اجداد کے متعلق معلومات حاصل کرنا چاہے تو وہ بھی ڈی این ٹیسٹ کے ذریعے ممکن ہے۔
copied

مخالفین کو بے عزت کرانے کی نیت سے جھوٹی ایف آئی آر کا تدارک کے قانون

عموماً دیکھا جاتا ہے کہ مخالفین کسی کو معاشر ے میں ,دوستوں اوعزیزوں کے سامنے بےعزت کرانے کے لیےایف آر درج کراتے ہیں اگر پولیس انکار کرے تو عدالت سے رجوع کرتے ہیں لہذا ہائیکورٹ نے اپنے ایک فیصلہ میں کہا ہے کہ ہرمقدمہ کا باریک بینی سے جائزہ لینا پولیس اور عدالت کا بنیادی فرض ہے اور ایف آئی آر کے لیے دی گئ ایسی درخواستوں کو منظور نہیں کرنا چاہیے.
2014 MLD 1033

جسٹس آف پیس کے فرائض کا دائرہ کار
جسٹس آف پیس شہریوں کا محافظ ہوتا ہے اور کسی شخص کے خلاف اندراج مقدمہ کے احکامات دینے سے حقائق کا ملاحظہ ضرور کرے.
2012 PLD 398

پولیس کی ذمہ داری
پولیس کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ کوئی بھی کسی شخص کے خلاف اگر ایف آئی درج کرانے آتا ہے تو پولیس کو چاہیے کہ پتا لگاے کہ آیا ایسا کوئی وقوعہ پیش ہوا بھی ہے یا نہیں

جھوٹی ایف آر درج کرانے کی سزا
تعزیرات پاکستان کی دفعہ 182 کے تحت اگر کوئی شخص کسی شخص کے خلاف جھوٹا پرچہ کراتا ہے تو اس شخص کو 6ماہ قید کی سزا ہوسکتی ہے