| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3113 2025 SLD 3113 = 2025 PCRLJ 675 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024, decided on 6th August, 2024.
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar C.J and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J
Khalil Ahmed Panezai, Wali Muhammad Barech, Kaleemullah Achakzai, Habibur-Rehman and Muhammad Rashid Ayub for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023). Habibullah Gul, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023). Nisar Ahmed Alizai for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023). Nisar Ahmed Alizai for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024). Khalil Ahmed Panezai, Wali Muhammad Barech, Kaleemullah Achakzai, Habibur-Rehman and Muhammad Rashid Ayub for
Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024). Habibullah Gul, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024).
Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024, decided on 6th August, 2024.
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar C.J and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J
Khalil Ahmed Panezai, Wali Muhammad Barech, Kaleemullah Achakzai, Habibur-Rehman and Muhammad Rashid Ayub for Appellant (in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023). Habibullah Gul, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State (in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023). Nisar Ahmed Alizai for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeal No. 479 of 2023). Nisar Ahmed Alizai for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024). Khalil Ahmed Panezai, Wali Muhammad Barech, Kaleemullah Achakzai, Habibur-Rehman and Muhammad Rashid Ayub for
Respondent No. 1 (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024). Habibullah Gul, Additional Prosecutor General for the State (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 19 of 2024).
SAFAR KHAN ---Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE---Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 316
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 22A
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 316---Qatl shibh-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Death due to custodial torture---Defence plea not established---Accused persons were Police Officials and deceased died in their custody during investigation of a criminal offence---Trial Court convicted the accused persons---Validity---According to complainant, he brought his son (deceased) and a relative in the Police Station and handed them over to the appellant, the then SHO of the said Police Station, but later his son was found dead in the police custody due to severe torture by the then SHO (appellant), Head Moharar and Munshi---Defence tried to shake the testimony of complainant, but failed to succeed---Testimony of complainant inspired confidence, which by all means sounded truthful---Complainant had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant and let go the real culprits---Other witness testified in line with the testimony of complainant and affirmed the fact that while he along with the complainant were present outside the police station, they heard the clamor of deceased---Testimony of said witness also went unshaken, despite lengthy cross-examination---Another witness/Santri deposed that on the fateful night on the direction of appellant, he brought deceased from Hawalaat and handed over his custody to him in the room of DSP, whereafter he went for his duty at the gate, whereas the SHO (appellant) locked the room from inside and that after 20 to 25 minutes, when he came back, he found deceased lying unconscious on the water tank, whereas the appellant and Head Moharar were standing nearby,whereafter Inspector took the deceased to the Hospital---Gunman testified that on the fateful night, while he was on patrol duty, at about 1:00 a.m., he was called to the Police Station, whereupon he went to the Police Station, where he found the deceased unconscious, who was taken to the Hospital in a vehicle, where doctors examined him, however, later he succumbed, whereafter he brought the deceased to the Civil Hospital---Santri and Gunman were cross-examined, but both of them remained firm and consistent, thus, their testimony went…