Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 1207 2025 SLD 1207 = 2025 SCMR 762
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Jail Petition No. 95 of 2022, decided on 20th February, 2025. (Against the judgment dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Cr. A. No. 190 of 2018 and Murder Reference No. 9 of 2018).
PRESENT: MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR AND ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JJ
Sagheer Ahmad Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ms. Chand Bibi, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State.

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN ---PETITIONER

VS

THE STATE ---RESPONDENTS

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 154,103

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

Section: 140,153,129(g)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.154---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 140 & 153--- First Information Report (FIR)---Scope---First Information Report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence unless its contents are affirmed on oath in witness box by its maker and its maker is subjected to the test of cross-examination--- First Information Report in view of Articles 140 and 153 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is a previous statement and can only be used for contradicting its maker---Unless FIR is proved through its maker, it cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence in favour of prosecution's case.Nasar Ali's case AIR 1957 SC 366 and Ghaus Muhammad alias Ghaus and another v. The State 1979 SCMR 155 rel.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129, illustration (g)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.103---Qatl-i-amd---Re-appraisal of evidence---Withholding of evidence---Recovery proceedings---Non-associating private witnesses---Accused was convicted and sentenced to death for committing murder of his wife---Validity---At the trial, prosecution did not produce owner of the house as witness, thus, adverse inference was drawn under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984 to the effect that had the above witness been produced by the prosecution at the trial, he would not have supported the version of the prosecution---Place of occurrence was surrounded by Abadi but investigating officer did not associate any person for the recovery of dead body---Investigating officer did not prepare recovery memo of dead body of deceased and simply made memo of iron box---No private witness of locality was associated to attest alleged iron box---Due to non-association of any private witness of locality to attest, the recovery memo lacked independent corroboration and the same was disbelieved---Judgments of Courts below were against the principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal dispensation of justice and the law settled by Supreme Court---Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and he was acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed.Mst Saima Noreen v. The State…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register