The Bayes’ theorem is a mathematical formula to gauge and describe the probability of an event by employing prior knowledge and evidence relevant to the event. The objective of the present study was to understand the Bayesian theorem and its application in judicial trials by deploying doctrinal research methodology. After consulting authoritative writings of prominent researchers and judicial decisions, study found that the Bayesian Probability in legal context used in odds version, likelihood ratio and in the form of Bayesian networks. The study also found that the application of the theorem in judicial proceedings was controversial since various researchers condemned, and numerous analysts advocated its application in real time court cases. Moreover, the study found that the theorem has been and advocated to be used to measure the probative force of statistical and non-statistical evidence, and to infer the causes of any event by observing its effects. It is expected that the present study will enable the legal fraternity to understand the working mechanism and various uses of Bayes’ theorem in legal context. Keywords: Application of Bayesian theorem, Bayesian Probability, Judicial decisions, Uses of Bayesian theory in judicial trials.

The present study intended to understand the meaning, forms and challenges in legal-historical research to suggest a general framework for the researchers doing legal-historical research. After deploying the doctrinal research method, the current study found that there is scarcity of guidelines for legal researcher to carry out historical research in law. The existing literature on methodology for legal-historical research studies do not offer a detailed methodology to carry out historical-legal research. The present study, after analyzing the meaning, forms, challenges and various methodologies, suggests seven-step methodology to carry out historical research in law. It is hoped that the present study will enable legal researchers to devise a comprehensive methodology for doing historical-legal studies. Key Words: Research, Historical Research, Historical-Legal research, Types of Research, Internal and External Research, Methodology of Historical-Legal Research.

The objective of the present study was to understand how the courts process evidence in criminal proceedings to establish disputed questions of fact. The present study, after deploying doctrinal research methodology, found that the criminal procedure code (hereinafter CrPC), Qanoon e Shahadat Order (hereinafter QSO), the police rules and the high court rules regulate the production of evidence in the courts. The study also found that the courts admit evidence by considering the relevancy of evidence, exclusionary rules of evidence and the procedural rules related to collection and recording of evidence. Moreover, the study found that the courts consider the quantity and the quality of evidence while evaluating the evidence. In addition, the study found that the courts draw inferences by using deductive, inductive, and abductive methods of drawing inferences from evidence. The study also found that generalization played a central role in all the three methods of drawing inferences. It is expected that the present study will clarify the legal framework dealing with processing of evidence in criminal cases. Keywords: Admission of Evidence, Evaluation of Evidence, Generalization, Process of Proof, Production of Evidence. Relevancy of Evidence.

The law of evidence is concerned with the relevancy and admissibility of evidence and the process of proof. It is generally thought that "evidence" is the only means of proof in Qanoon e Shadat, Order 1984 (from now on QSO). The objectives of the present study were to explore the meaning and means of proof in QSO. After deploying doctrinal research methodology and analyzing numerous judicial decisions and statutory provisions, the current research found two meanings of proof in QSO. Moreover, the study found that disputed facts in judicial proceedings may be proved with evidence, presumptions, judicial notice, judges' personal knowledge, demeanour and formal admission. The study also found that some means of proof involve the use of evidence, whereas, some means of proof do not involve the use of evidence. Similarly, the study also found that evidence is the major means of proof which can be used to prove any fact. On the other hand, other means of proof are meant to establish the existence or non-existence of specific facts and under particular circumstances. It is hoped that the present study will clarify the meaning and mechanism of proof scattered in various statutory provisions of QSO. Keywords: Judicial Proof, Means of Proof, Presumptions, Judicial Notice, Formal Admissions

Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement which is presented in court to prove that the assertions made in it are true. The hearsay rule means that hearsay evidence will not be used in judicial proceedings except in exceptional cases. The definition, kinds and exceptions to hearsay rule have been explicitly discussed in various statutes and judicial decisions of common law countries. On the other hand, the definition and exceptions to hearsay evidence have not been explicitly discussed in Qanoon e Shahdat, 1984 (Pakistani law of evidence hereinafter QSO) which causes great difficulty in understanding the nature and scope of this concept. The present study, by deploying doctrinal research methods, intends to address these issues by analyzing the hearsay evidence and its exception in QSO. It is hoped that the present study will clarify the meaning and exceptions to hearsay rule in QSO. Keywords: Hearsay Evidence, Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence in Common Law, Direct Evidence, Kinds of Hearsay, Hearsay in Pakistan