| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 2277 2025 SLD 2277 = 2025 YLR 816 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2019, decided on 19th November, 2024.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J
Ms. Fariyat Ishaque and Sathi M. Ishaque for Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi and Irshad Ahmed Jatoi for the Complainant.
Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2019, decided on 19th November, 2024.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha, J
Ms. Fariyat Ishaque and Sathi M. Ishaque for Appellant. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi and Irshad Ahmed Jatoi for the Complainant.
ZEESHAN alias Shan---Applicant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302(b)
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 342,350
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd--Appreciation of evidence---Second statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C.--Legality---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting churri blow---Prosecution case primarily rested on the evidence of three eye-witnesses who according to their evidence all saw the accused (appellant) stabbing the deceased to death---Question of the murder by the appellant in respect of evidence of eye-witnesses that they had seen the appellant stabbing the deceased was put to the appellant in his first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement---Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application to call two further witnesses being the MLO in respect of the medical evidence and the Judicial Magistrate in respect of S. 164 Cr.P.C statement which he recorded--Such application was allowed and the two said witnesses gave evidence--Thereafter the trial Court recorded a second further statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C---All the parties were in agreement that after recording two new witnesses the first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement was of no legal effect and a second fresh S. 342 Cr.P.C statement had to be recorded---Record showed that the Trial Court had tried to record a further statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C apparently in continuation of the first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement of the appellant, however, there was no provision in law/concept which allowed a further S. 342 Cr.P.C statement to be made in continuation of the first S. 342 Cr.P.C which was limited to new witnesses which had been recorded and after the evidence of two witnesses had been recorded in between the two separate S. 342 Cr.P.C statements---S. 342 Cr.P.C statement must be recorded afresh, if it had not already been recorded, at the completion of the prosecution case which would lead to there being one final S. 342 Cr.P.C statement encompassing each piece of evidence which the prosecution intended to rely on to convict the accused--After recording the two additional witnesses pursuant to the prosecution application under S. 540, Cr.P.C the first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement…