| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 2846 2004 SLD 2846 2004 PCRLJ 42 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Appeal No. 7/K of 2002, decided on 25th September, 2003. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2003.
CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, CHIEF, JUSTICE, DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Allah Bachayo Soomro for. Appellants. M. Arshad Lodhi, Asstt. A.G., Sindh for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 7/K of 2002, decided on 25th September, 2003. Date of hearing: 25th September, 2003.
CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, CHIEF, JUSTICE, DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE
Allah Bachayo Soomro for. Appellants. M. Arshad Lodhi, Asstt. A.G., Sindh for the State.
ASHRAF AND 4 OTHERS --AppellantS
VS
THE STATE --Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342(1)
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -- S. 342(1) Power to examine the accused Compliance with the provisions of S.342, Cr.P.C. in accordance with its terms is essential and departure there from is not permissible if some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused Examination of accused is mandatory and not discretionary Trial Court cannot take into account any incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence against the accused without questioning him on that point. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) -- S. 342(1) Power to examine the accused Object Object of the examination of the accused is to give him an opportunity of explaining the circumstances which tend to incriminate him or likely to influence the mind of the Judge in arriving at a conclusion adverse to him Examination of the accused is a necessity and not a mere formality. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 342(1) Power to examine the accused Non compliance vitiates the trial Where the accused is not questioned or his attention is not drawn to an important piece of evidence implicating him in the case, such omission is fatal for prosecution. Munir Ahmad alias Munni v. The State 2001 SCMR 56; Asif Ali Zardari and another v. The State PLD 2001 SC 568; Rattan Singh v. State of H.P. AIR 1997 SC 768; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622 and State of Maharasthra v. Sukhdeo Singh 1992 Cr.LJ 3454 ref. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 396/397 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4.) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.342(1) Non compliance of S.342(1), Cr.P.C. Case remanded Trial Court had not adopted mandatory procedure in conducting the trial and had failed to question the accused on material points of the case including the recovery of weapons of offence from them as required by S.342(1), Cr.P.C. Impugned was consequently set aside and the case was remanded to Trial Court with consent of the parties for fresh decision in accordance with law after re examining the accused properly under S.342(1), Cr.P.C. Munir Ahmad alias Munni v. The State 2001 SCMR 56; Asif Ali Zardari and another v. The State PLD 2001 SC…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492