Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 148,149,302,364,452

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

Section: 47

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10(1),10-A

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 87,88,173,342,512

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 364, 452, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 512---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 47---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Transposition of statement in subsequent trial---Effect---Accused was charged for the murder of complainant's cousin's son---Report under S.173, Cr.P.C. was filed under S.512, Cr.P.C. by showing all the accused as absconders---Subsequently, two co-accused appeared before the court and charge was framed against them including the present accused/appellant---Trial Court, at the time of framing of charge, appointed an advocate as defence counsel on State expenses, who cross-examined the witnesses---After concluding trial, Trial Court convicted all the accused by passing impugned ---Present accused had preferred appeal, which was allowed by setting aside conviction and consequently, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for de-novo trial---During the de-novo trial, two prosecution witnesses had expired---During pendency of the case, prosecution filed application under Art. 47 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 for transposition of statement of deceased witnesses, already recorded by the Trial Court, which was accepted---Validity---Record transpired that Trial Court had relied upon the statements of witnesses recorded during proceedings under S. 512, Cr.P.C., despite the fact that defence counsel was appointed on State expenses, who cross-examined the witnesses---Article 47 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, described that the evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceedings or before any person authorised by law to take it was relevant for the purpose of proving in subsequent judicial proceedings or in a later stage of the same judicial proceedings---Since both the witnesses died natural death before initiation of the de novo trial, therefore, such evidence was necessary to prove the charge against the accused---Though, the trial was held in absentia but under the special law, it was bounden…

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