Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 515 2020 SLD 515 2020 PCRLJ 311
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal ATJ Appeals Nos. 49 of 2018, 191 of 2016 and Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2016, decision Dated: 07-02-2019, hearing Date : 25-01-2019.
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JUSTICE MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE
Ms. Abida Parveen Channar for Appellants. Mohammad Iqbal Awan, Deputy Prosecutor-General, Sindh for the State.

FAZAL HUSSAIN ALIAS FAQEERA AND OTHERS

VS

THE STATE

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 34,302

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 103,161

Law: Anti Narcotics Force Act, 1997

Section: 7

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Extra-judicial confession---Retrated---Scope---Prosecution case was that deceased police constable was driving with Frontier Corps personnel in private car when he was alerted by local people about the accused persons who were committing robbery whereupon the deceased got down from the vehicle and was fired upon by the accused---Investigating Officer had submitted report before the concerned court after 28 days of investigation that no solid evidence was found against any person for the murder of the deceased---Later, after 16 days out of blue, accused who had been booked in a case under Arms Ordinance gave extra-judicial confession before the police that he was involved in the murder, took investigating officer to the scene of incident and implicated co-accused as being his accomplice---Co-accused was already in custody in another case who also gave extra-judicial confession to the police that he had shot the deceased---Accused had absolutely no need or reason to confess---Accused, in his confession, did not even confess to the murder rather he blamed the co-accused---Confession of accused, at best seemed to be motivated at saving his own skin which was hardly indicative of its truthfulness and in any event could not be used legally to convict the co-accused---Confession was recorded after five days of arrest which delay was not explained---Pointation of co-accused of the place of incident was inconsequential as police already knew the place of incident---Co-accused was never produced before the Magistrate to record his confession under S. 164, Cr.P.C.---Prosecution could not prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of doubt---Confirmation reference was answered by the High Court in the negative. Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan 2016 SCMR 274 and Sajid Mumtaz v. Basharat 2006 SCMR 231 ref. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure…
🔒
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