| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 1572 2016 SLD 1572 2016 PLJ 230 |
Crl. Appeal No. 548 of 2002, heard on 23.12.2014. Date of hearing: 23.12.2014.
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.
Mr. Nadim Ahmad Tarrar and Malik Muhammad Siddique Kamboh, Advocate for Appellant. Malik Muhammad Jaffar, D.P.G. for State. Mr. Khalid Farooq, Advocate for Complainant.
RAZAQ and another--Appellants
VS
STATE and another--Respondents
Law:
Section:
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302, 436, 201 & 34--Conviction and sentence--Factor of extra judicial confession was disclosed--Motive was entirely different from FIR--Motive coming through extra judicial confession was never investigated--Validity--If evidence of extra judicial confession is believed, then it is quite unnatural that persons who are empty handed and confess their guilt about commission of a heinous offence of murder, witnesses before whom such confession is made, would remain as silent spectators, as there is not a single word in statements of PWs that they made even an attempt to capture accused at that time to handover them to police--Thus, evidence of extra judicial confession is not confidence inspiring--Prosecution had miserably failed to prove charge against accused/appellants beyond any shadow of doubt--Criminal appeal was allowed. 2011 YLR 2837, rel. Extra Judicial Confession-- ----Scope of--Evidence of alleged extra judicial confession, which by itself is a weak type of evidence, cannot advance case of prosecution against accused. Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302(b), 436, 201 & 34--Conviction and sentence--Recovery of crime weapon--Blood stained dagger--Chhuri was recovered from residential room lying in a box--Validity--After committing heinous crime of murder accused were keep crime weapon safe in their house, for its subsequent recovery and production to prosecution, so as to be used against them as evidence and secondly, it also does not appeal to mind that a churri which remains lying in a box along with clothes for more than two months would still carry blood stains on it--Therefore, recovery evidence which even otherwise has just corroborative value, is not believable, especially when recovery witness, in his statement before Court does not state that at time of recover crime weapons contained blood stains. Ocular account-- ----Extra judicial confession--Ocular account of prosecution witnesses, as well as extra-judicial confession and wajtaker indicated that witnesses attempted to improve their case in very desperate manner, which statements suffered from material contradictions.…
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