Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 367 2018 SLD 367 2018 PLJ 231

Crl. A. No. 1978 of 2015, hearing Date : 24.10.2017.

Mr. Shabbir Ahmed and Mian Liaquat Ali, Advocates for Appellant. Malik Allah Yar, Advocate for Complainant. Mr. Haroon-ur-Rasheed, DDPP for State.

RANI BIBI

VS

STATE, ETC

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 39,40

Last Seen evidence-- ----Conviction of a person on basis of last seen evidence, prosecution is required to place on record some other independent piece of evidence, which may provide sufficient corroboration--In absence of such corroboration, it is not considered safe to award conviction solely on basis of last seen evidence. 2008 SCMR 1103, ref. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (10 of 1984)-- ----Arts. 39 & 40--Statement of accused--Admissible--Statement of an accused made in custody of police, is inadmissible under Article 39--It further evinces that Article 40 is an exception to what is contemplated in earlier Article--According to Article 40, a statement of an accused made in police custody, can be brought on record only if it leads to discovery of a fact, perceivable through senses--In order to attract provision of Article 40, prosecution is obliged to prove that information given by accused led to recovery of a fact, which was not previously known to anybody--A simple statement of an accused regarding facts which are already in knowledge of police or any person, does not fall within purview of Article 40 and instead will fall within ambit of Article 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--From above, it can safely be gathered that alleged statement and disclosure of appellant was an inadmissible piece of evidence and should not have been brought on record by trial Court. 2014 PCr.LJ 571, ref. Duty of Presiding Officer-- ----A heavy duty is cast upon Presiding Officer of a Court at time of recording of evidence--He is legally obliged to bring on record, only evidence which is legally admissible--He must be at his toes to discard evidence, which is inadmissible in nature--Likewise, if any objection is raised either by defence or by prosecution, regarding admissibility of any evidence, Presiding Officer of Court is to decide fate of such an objection there and then--It is not appreciable on his part to dispense with his order regarding such an objection till final pronouncement of --Such an approach on one hand is likely to frustrate very wisdom and intent of legislatures, whereby it is desired that an inadmissible piece of evidence should not be made part of…
🔒
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