Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),392/34

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 392/34---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Bulk of evidence adduced by the prosecution revolved around circumstantial evidence and no eye-witness of the crime was available---Accused had made an extra-judicial confession at the police station and also before two independent witnesses---One of them was a businessman, while other was a movie maker---Accused in his extra-judicial confession admitted to have committed robbery and murder of deceased---Said extrajudicial confession before independent prosecution witnesses, when seen along with his disappearance after the incident, recovery of stolen articles from him and pointation to the place of occurrence and the place where he abandoned the car, had furnished satisfactory evidence to his guilt---Case of murder and robbery stood clearly established against accused--- Keeping however in view the facts and circumstances of the case, his sentence for murder was converted from death to imprisonment for life---Sentence of fine imposed on accused would remain the same and he would be entitled to benefit under S.382-B, Cr.P.C. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 392/34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.38 & 39---Appreciation of evidence-Extra-judicial confession---Counsel for accused had contended that extra judicial confession of accused had no evidentiary value as said confession was made by him at a police station---Validity---Extra Judicial confession, no doubt, was a weak piece of evidence and when it was made at Police Station, it surely was inadmissible in evidence---Accused, however also made confession before independent witnesses---Contention of counsel for accused, was repelled, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 392/34---Appreciation of evidence---Neither weapons of offence, namely ‘Dupatta’ and ‘nylon rope’, allegedly used in the murder by co-accused were produced by the prosecution nor the quilt which covered the dead body was recovered and thus no direct evidence of her involvement in the crime was available---Indeed main accused had implicated co-accused in the commission of…

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