| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1148 2021 SLD 1148 2021 SCMR 1914 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No. 952 of 2021, decided on 8th October, 2021, Date of hearing: 8th October, 2021. (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Dated 12.7.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2824-B of 2021)
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
James Joseph, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sandhu, Additional P.G., Farhat, SHO, Jalil and Ghulam Yasin, I.Os. for the State.
Criminal Petition No. 952 of 2021, decided on 8th October, 2021, Date of hearing: 8th October, 2021. (Against the order of Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Dated 12.7.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2824-B of 2021)
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, JUSTICE, MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE
James Joseph, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Sarwar Sandhu, Additional P.G., Farhat, SHO, Jalil and Ghulam Yasin, I.Os. for the State.
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 161,172
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302,148,149
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 161 172---Examination of witnesses by the police---Statement of witness recorded in case diary (zimni) prepared under S. 172, Cr.P.C. instead of being recorded separately---Whether such statement constituted a witness statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Held, that under S. 161(3), Cr.P.C. the police officer was to reduce in writing any statement made to him in the course of examination of any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case---Police officer was to make a separate record of the statement of each such person but in case the statement of such a person, recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO), was embodied in the case diary instead of being recorded separately, it was at best a procedural lapse on the part of the IO but the statement itself did not lose its character as a statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Distinction between Ss. 161 172, Cr.P.C. was that while one dealt with the recording of the statement of witnesses / persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, the other was the information or opinion of the IO which he gathered and formed during the course of the investigation --- So if while recording his opinion in the case diary, the IO also recorded the statement of a witness, any such statement continued to pass for a statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and did not become a part of the case diary under S. 172, Cr.P.C. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto v. State PLD 1979 SC 53; Nasrullah v. State 1980 PCr.LJ 5; Muhammad Akbar v. State 1985 PCr.LJ 338; Muhammad Tahir v. State 1986 PCr.LJ 3025; Khalid Pervez v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1824; Nazar Muhammad v. Mushtaq Ahmad PLD 1996 Lah. 277; Muhammad Riaz v. State PLD 2003 Lah. 290 and Muhktiar Hussain v. State and others - Criminal Miscellaneous No.7627-B/2020 and vide Order dated 29.03.2021 in Ghulam Murtaza v. State and others - Criminal Miscellaneous No. 659-B of 2021 ref. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 148 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry--- Investigating Officer (IO) categorically stated before the Court that on…
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