| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 901 2018 SLD 901 2018 YLR 922 |
Criminal Appeal No. 1-Q, Jail Criminal Appeal No. 4-Q and Criminal Revision No. 1-Q of 2015, decision Dated: 16-1-2018. Hearing Date : 11-1-2018.
DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, JUSTICE, MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, JUSTICE
Shah Muhammad Jatoi for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 1-Q of 2015). Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal for Appellant (in Jail Criminal Appeal No. 4-Q of 2015). Tahir Hussain Khan for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision No. 1-Q of 2015). Syed Abdul Baqir Shah Addl. P.G. for the State.
ABDUL SAMAD AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 164
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)
Section: 40
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 164---Confession---Voluntariness---Torture by police even on first day after his arrest casts serious doubt about voluntariness of confession. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Offenses Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(4)---Qatl-i-amd and haraaba---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement, retracted---Voluntariness of statement---Determining factors---Accused persons were arrested and alleged to have pointed places of recovery of murder without recovery of any dead bodies---Accused persons were convicted for causing qatl-i-amd and sentenced to imprisonment for life---Validity---Unexplained delay in recording confession, torture upon maker of confession during course of investigation, omission to mention factum of removal of handcuffs, failure of Magistrate to mention grant of time prior to making confessional statement, note recorded by Magistrate regarding production of accused at a particular time and recording statement at same time had cast serious doubt about voluntariness of confession---Pointing of places without any recovery was of little help to prosecution to prove guilt of accused persons as same was inadmissible in evidence---Federal Shariat Court extended benefit of doubt to persons as a matter of right and set aside conviction and sentence awarded to them by Trial Court---Appeal for enhancement of sentence was dismissed in circumstances. (c) Criminal trial--- ----Defense plea---Scope---Failure of accused to prove any plea in defense, if taken, by itself is not sufficient to prove case of prosecution---Prosecution is under compulsion to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of doubt. Azeem Khan and another v. Mujahid Khan and others 2016 SCMR 274; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622; Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986; Suleman v. The State 2006 SCMR 366; Muhammad Pervez and others v. The State 2007 SCMR 670; Naqeeb Ullah's case PLD 1978 SC 21; Khan Muhammad's case 1981 SCMR 597; Ghulam Qadir and others…
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