Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2530 2016 SLD 2530 2016 PCRLJ 1766
Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench
Writ Petition No.190-B of 2015, decision dated: 12-01-2016, hearing DATE : 12-01-2016.
MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM AND MUHAMMAD GHAZANFAR KHAN, JUSTICE
Pir Liaqat Ali Shah for Petitioner. Saifur Rehman Khattak, Additional A.G. for
Respondent No. 1. Anwarul Haq for
Respondents.

JEHANGIR KHAN.

VS

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA THROUGH SECRETARY HOME AND TRIBAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, Peshawar High Court AND 16 others.

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---.--- ---.---S. 302---.---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.22-A(6), 161 & 265-K---.---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---.---Qatl-i-amd---.---Constitutional petition---.--- Conversion of defence plea of accused FIR---.---Scope---.---Statement of accused, could not be made basis for registration of a case, even if it disclosed commission of a cognizable offence---.---In the present case, complainant had directly and singly charged accused/petitioner for committing murder of the deceased---.---Charge was duly supported by motive---.---Another FIR about the same occurrence could be registered but if the statement of the accused under S.161, Cr.P.C., before the Police; coupled with those of the persons, who had sworn affidavits about his innocence, were taken into consideration, same would tantamount to establish and prove his presence on the spot at the relevant time---.---Glaring contradictions existed between the contents of statements of the petitioner recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., his application to Superintendent of Police Investigation for fair and impartial investigation; and those narrated in the application moved before the Justice of Peace under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C.---.---Subsequent stance of the petitioner, was also at a belated stage, which amounted to an afterthought---.---Points agitated in the Constitutional petition and those addressed at the bar by the counsel for the petitioner, pertained to the facts of the case, which could not be gone into by High Court in exercise of its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction---.---Prima facie, the petitioner was linked with the commission of offence; any observation made by High Court at such a stage, would prejudice case of either party during trial---.---Innocence or otherwise of the petitioner, could properly be adjudged when pro and contra evidence would come on record during trial of the case---.---Genuineness or otherwise of the affidavits, sworn by the person concerned about the alleged innocence of the petitioner, would also properly be thrashed out when said witnesses would face the test of cross-examination at trial---.--W.hen the petitioner, could move the…
🔒
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