Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1041 2018 SLD 1041 2018 PCRLJ 433

Criminal Misc. Nos. 140 and 142 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 28-08-2017.
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, JUSTICE
Munir Ahmed and Imtiaz Hussain for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent.

AKHTAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 47---Inherent powers of the Chief Court---Evidence recorded in previous trial---Scope---Petitioner/accused along with the co-accused was charged for the murder of the deceased---Challan was submitted before the Trial Court and after full-fledged trial, petitioner was awarded life imprisonment and co-accused was awarded death sentence---Petitioner filed appeal, which was accepted on the ground that the petitioner was minor and his joint trial with co-accused was illegal and unwarranted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Supreme Appellate Court in appeal upheld the of Chief Court---Separate challan was filed against petitioner on the direction of the Trial Court---Charge was framed and case was fixed for prosecution evidence---Public Prosecutor made a statement that he did not want to re-examine the prosecution witnesses and stated that he would rely on the statements of prosecution witnesses already recorded---Matter was thereafter fixed for recording of statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C.--- Petitioner filed application for re-examination of prosecution witnesses, which was dismissed---Petitioner moved another petition under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., for acquittal from the charge mainly on the ground that after direction of de-novo trial by the Chief Court, the Public Prosecutor abandoned his right to re-examine the prosecution witnesses and no conviction could be based on previously recorded statements of prosecution witnesses, therefore, it had become a case of "no evidence"---Said petition was also dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Such statement by the Public Prosecutor regarding relying on the previous statements of the witnesses was a criminal negligence and was depreciated---Previous proceedings had been set aside by the Chief Court and the order was upheld by the Supreme Appellate Court---Trial Court had endorsed the illegal request of Public Prosecutor and turned down the application of accused for re-summoning the prosecution witnesses---Evidence recorded in previous trial could not be read as evidence…
🔒
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