Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1137 2018 SLD 1137 2018 PCRLJ 750
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. S-161 of 2009, decision & hearing Dated: 03-05-2017.
OMAR SIAL, JUSTICE
Sher Muhammad Shar for Appellant. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, A.P.G. for the State.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 201, 404 & 34--Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery---Scope---Recovered motorcycle of accused was not produced at trial---No description of the pistol (alleged weapon of offence) was given and the same was not sent for ballistic examination to determine as to whether said pistol was the one which was used for the offence---Recovered pistol though was allegedly lying in a cotton field for ten days but the barrel of the same smelled of gun powder---No blood stains were found on the recovered shawl of the accused which allegedly he was wearing at the time of occurrence---Circumstances established that recoveries had been foisted on the accused. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 201, 404 & 34--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement---Reliance---Accused was charged for the murder and convicted on the basis of his confessional statement---Record showed that Magistrate did very little to comply with the requirements for recording confession in letter and spirit of relevant law---Magistrate did not introduce himself to the accused for recording his confession till the last question put to the accused---Accused was not assured by the Magistrate that he would not be handed over to the police after his confession---Magistrate handed over the accused to the police who had brought the accused for the purpose of taking him for judicial remand---Magistrate did not ask the accused about his age---Accused was of seventeen years of age at the time of incident---Magistrate recorded statements of two witnesses under S.164, Cr.P.C., which were the exact copy of the statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. recorded earlier---Circumstances established that the manner in which the alleged confession was recorded corroded its evidentiary…
🔒
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