| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1413 2018 SLD 1413 2018 PCRLJ 887 |
Lahore High Court
Cr. Rev. No. 142 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 20-06-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Faheem Ahmad Ch. for Petitioner. Nemo for the Complainant. Ch. Qaisar Mushtaq, ADPP with Arif, ASI for the State.
Cr. Rev. No. 142 of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 20-06-2017.
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE
Faheem Ahmad Ch. for Petitioner. Nemo for the Complainant. Ch. Qaisar Mushtaq, ADPP with Arif, ASI for the State.
MUHAMMAD NASEEM
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal trial--- ----Confession---Administration of justice was based upon adversarial trial with accused under a statutory presumption of being innocent---Prosecution alone was to drive home charge beyond reasonable doubt before a guilty verdict was returned by court---Accused, in such process, was protected by procedural safeguards to ensure him a fair deal in order to contest charge without being disadvantageously placed or unduly embarrassed---Procedural safeguards, provided to accused were protection against self-incrimination---Accused could not be burdened with confessional statement in derogation of strict procedure provided under the law. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 39 & 40---Confessional statement during police custody--- Scope--- Petitioner was amongst accused persons contesting indictment of homicide---Prosecution during trial, produced a witness who referred to confessional statement allegedly made by petitioner during his physical custody with police---Validity---Provisions of Art. 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 placed an unambiguous and unqualified prohibition on admissibility of confessional statement purportedly recorded in police custody, saved in the exception provided under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Trial Court should not have allowed such prosecution witness to transgress statutory limits---Status of identification/disclosure memo was not much different---Prosecution's case was that deceased was done to death in residential premises where she lived with petitioner under the same roof---Attributed specifications of the place did not constitute "information" within meaning of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---High Court directed Trial Court to exclude prosecution witness in question from consideration at time of final decision---Revision was allowed in circumstances. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, JUSTICE:-- -.--- Muhammad Naseem, petitioner herein, is amongst the accused, contesting indictment of homicide before a learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Jand; it is alleged that, in connivance with co-accused, he administered poison to Kousar Parveen, no other than his better half. Trial is…
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