Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 1032 2015 SLD 1032 2015 YLR 2694
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 286, 55-J of 2011 and Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2011, hearing Date : 18-08-2015.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Muhammad Abbas and Syeda B.H. Shah for Appellants. Ch. Qaisar Mushtaq, A.D.P.P. for the State. Raja Ikram Amin Minhas for the Complainant.

NUSRAT BIBI AND OTHERS

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---- ----Ss. 302 & 34----Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 161 & 162---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 39 & 43---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Examination of witness by police---Confession of accused while in police custody not to be proved against him---Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence---Extra judicial confession, proof of---Supplementary statement, reliance on---Principles---Eye-witness, daughters of deceased, neither mentioned in FIR nor their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C were recorded---Exclusion of statements of eye-witnesses recorded during trial---Safeguards provided to accused under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Blood relationship between witnesses and accused---Effect---Accused was alleged to have murdered her husband through assassins, other accused---Accused, the wife, took plea that complainant, brother of deceased, had implicated her in order to deprive her from her legal right in legacy of deceased, and that she, along with others, had not been nominated in FIR and had been implicated through supplementary statement which could not be admitted in evidence, and that trial court had wrongly relied upon extra judicial confession allegedly made by her---Trial court, convicting accused persons under S. 302(b), P.P.C., sentenced them to imprisonment for life and also awarded compensation under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C.---Extra judicial confession allegedly made by appellant, wife of deceased, was hit by Art. 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and same, therefore, could not be read in evidence to detriment of accused---Even if said confessional statement were admitted in evidence, it could only be considered against other accused within restrictions of Art. 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---No transaction had been carried out through ATM card, which prosecution had relied upon, to demonstrate payment of money to assassin---Reliance on supplementary statement was liable to be excluded from consideration, as supplementary statement was neither continuation of first information report nor could same be read in expansion…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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