| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 72 1973 SLD 72 = 1973 SCMR 162 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. K-5 and K-6 of 1972, heard on 19thFebruary 1973. dates of hearing : 12th, 15th, 17th and 19thFebruary 1973
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., SAJJAD AHMAD AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
Manzoor nadir, Senior Advocate instructed by M.I. Memon Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Cr. A. No. K6 1972 Azizullah K. Sheikh, Advocate instructed by M.I. Memon, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. A. H. Memon, Advocate General Sind (S, Hamid Hussain,
Criminal Appeals Nos. K-5 and K-6 of 1972, heard on 19thFebruary 1973. dates of hearing : 12th, 15th, 17th and 19thFebruary 1973
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J., SAJJAD AHMAD AND ANWARUL HAQ, JJ
Manzoor nadir, Senior Advocate instructed by M.I. Memon Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Cr. A. No. K6 1972 Azizullah K. Sheikh, Advocate instructed by M.I. Memon, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. A. H. Memon, Advocate General Sind (S, Hamid Hussain,
Cr. A. No. K-5 of 1972SAMANO
VS
THE STATECr. A. No. K-6 of 1972RAJAB ALIvs THE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 509
Law: Evidence Act, (1 of 1872)
Section: 45
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 509-Medical witness, deposition of-Question whether a critically injured person was in fit condition to talk or not-A question of medical opinion-�Such evidence of medical witness covered by provisions of S. 509�Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302.Nand Singh v. Emperor A I R 1943 Lah. 101 ref.(b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 45-Expert evidence-Albeit opinion of expert witness entitled to great weight yet it cannot override factual observations by other equally competent expert witnesses recorded at relevant time-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Eve-witnesses, evidence of Maxim: falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing; faise in all) not followed by Courts in this country in context of conditions prevailing here-Courts have duty to sift grain from chaff=Mere fact of evidence of eye-witnesses being not relied upon against one of accused-Would not react on credibility of evidence against other accused. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164 and Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 24-Confession, judicial-Accused, only half an hour before making confession, complaining to another Magistrate of police having given him beating for purpose of extracting confes�sion-Confession, in circumstance, held, not made voluntarily and hit by provision of S. 24, Evidence,Act-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302. (e) Sentence---Mitigation-Mere length of time taken in con�cluding trial and deciding appeals-Not by itself an extenuating circumstance justifying imposition of lesser penalty-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. Cr. A. No. K-5 of 1972JUDGMENT ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This judgment wily dispose of Criminal Appeals bearing Nos. K-5 and K-6 of 1972. e., ,, The appellant in the first case is Samano, and in the seconds Rajah Ali , who were both tried along with one Fateh Muhammad, by the learned Sessions Judge of Karachi, on charges falling under sections 143, 302 and 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code, read with section 149 thereof. While Fateh Muhammad was acquitted, the two appellants were convicted under sections 302 and 3u7 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On the first.…