Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,324,34

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 7

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 164

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused and injured witness--- Infirmities---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused in furtherance of common intention made firing upon the friends of the complainant, due to which one died and other was injured---Statements of accused and injured were recorded by the Judicial Magistrates---Judicial Magistrate in his examination-in-chief stated that at the time of recording of statement of witness under S.164, Cr.P.C., both, the witnesses and the accused, were produced before him after fulfilling all legal requirements, however, in his examination-in-chief neither he had confirmed that he had not informed the accused that he was entitled to engage a counsel to cross-examine the witness nor he verified from the accused or the Investigating Officer that accused had been served with the notice under S.160, Cr.P.C.---Even copy of statement of witness under S.161, Cr.P.C. was not provided to the accused before recording statement of the witness---Record did not show that even Judicial Magistrate himself had with him copy of statement of witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C., at the time of recording his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Record transpired that the Judicial Magistrate handed over custody of the accused back to the same Investigating Officer---Confessional statement of accused was recorded and as stated by the Investigating Officer in his examination-in-chief, he interrogated the accused in the lockup of Police Station where the accused was confined in some other case and re-arrested him in presence of mashirs---Accused had confessed his guilt in the present case before the Investigating Officer, meaning thereby that after confessional statement the accused was not sent to judicial lockup---Conviction and sentence of the accused could not be upheld, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was allowed. Muhammad Parvez and others v. The State 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