| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 2425 2014 SLD 2425 2014 PCRLJ 323 |
Peshawar High Court
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 78, Criminal Appeals Nos. 98, 81, Criminal Revision No. 51 and Murder Reference No. 4 of 2011, decided on 22nd May, 2013
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND WAQAR AHMED SETH, JJ
Noor Alam Khan for Appellant. F. M. Sabir for the State. Shakeel Khan Gillani for the Complainant
Jail Criminal Appeal No. 78, Criminal Appeals Nos. 98, 81, Criminal Revision No. 51 and Murder Reference No. 4 of 2011, decided on 22nd May, 2013
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND WAQAR AHMED SETH, JJ
Noor Alam Khan for Appellant. F. M. Sabir for the State. Shakeel Khan Gillani for the Complainant
TAJ WALI SHAH
VS
The STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 164---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-e-amd---Confessional statement---Procedure---Handing of accused to police custody---Magistrate, at the time of recording confessional statement gave time to accused to decide about making of statement and after 30 minutes re-summoned the accused in Court and got recorded his statement---Validity---Such was no way of recording confession of accused in murder case---Once accused, in a murder case, was entrusted to custody of Magistrate, the Magistrate was required to clear his Court room from all police officials/officers in uniform or in plain clothes and accused was to be provided chair and dice, also disclosing to him that he was in safe and secured hands of Magistrate and he would not entertain any fear of police---Magistrate was also to infuse courage and confidence into accused and was to provide assurance that in case he did not make confession, he would not be handed over back to police--- Simply filling of printed pro forma or dictating such important matters to typist was not a faithful obligation under law---Magistrate had shown irresponsible attitude while dealing with such sensitive matter and had violated clear instructions of High Court---Confessional statement was not relied upon in circumstances. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302(b)---Qatl-e-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confession, rejection of---Delay in sending crime weapon and empties---Once confession was rejected, being unnatural, clashing with ocular account and not fairly corroborated through trustworthy and unimpeachable corroboratory evidence, no capital punishment could be awarded on such retracted confession because of rule of caution and warning and also of prudence exercised in administration of criminal justice---High Court disbelieved mode and manner of recoveries and arrest of accused persons in the manner stated by prosecution---Opinion of arms expert, where pistol and crime empties were sent for forensic report with 6 days delay also could not be relied upon and was discarded---Prosecution failed to prove guilt of all three accused beyond any shadow of…
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