Abscondence could never be considered in isolation and was only a corroborative piece of evidence.

Citation Name : 2020 YLR 212 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM RASOOL alias GUDDA
Side Opponent : State
abscondence ---Evidentiary value---abscondence could never be considered in isolation and was only a corroborative piece of evidence.

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 1994 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : WAJEEH-UL-HASSAN
Side Opponent : State
Ss. 295-A, 295-C & 298-A---Blasphemy---Reappraisal of evidence---Extra-judicial confession--- abscondence --- Effect--- Declaration of faith---Accused was alleged to have written letters to complainant carrying blasphemous contents---Accused remained absconder and had made an extrajudicial confession---Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death, which sentence was confirmed by the High Court---Validity---Contents of letters were the most grievously blasphemous, however, whether accused authored and dispatched letters and complainant received them in the manner as alleged in crime report and whether extrajudicial confession supported by expert's report constituted sufficient evidence to hand down penalty of death, were issues altogether different---Penalty of death was irreversible and warranted caution in the highest degree, before a convict was dispatched to gallows---One weak piece of evidence could not corroborate another weak piece of evidence---Absconsion could not be viewed as a proof for the crime---People stay away from law for a verity of reasons not necessarily compatible with hypothesis of guilt, to avoid impending wrath of opponents in hostile environments, more often than not compel even the innocent into recusal of safety---Declaration of faith by accused was to be preferred over divergent imputations---Citizen regardless of religion were equal before law and were entitled to equal protection thereof and it was so guaranteed under the Constitution---Criminal charge was to be essentially settled on positive proof alone and not on perceptional or optical paradigms and the same was out of the sight---Supreme Court by extending benefit of doubt, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused, as it was grievously unsafe to maintain the same without potential risk of error and accused was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed.