Case Details

Citation(s)
1970 SLG 3221 1970 SLD 3221 = 1970 PLD 689
Lahore High Court
Murder Reference No. 71 and Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1969, decided on 24th November 1969.
Presented By: Bashiruddin Ahmad and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, JJ
Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan and Ch. Eitizaz Hussain for Appel lants. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, A. A. G. for the State.

RIAZ AHMAD alias RAJOO AND ANOTHER Convict---Appellants

VERSUS

THE STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Murder---One solitary eye-witness found reliable---Such witness a relation of deceased--- Rule of prudence require independent corroboration---Such corroboration should be sought in respect of each of several accused, particularly where all accused are brothers. (b) Penal Coda (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Identification---Prosecution witness twice failing to identify accused at identification parade---Mere fact that on direct question by public prosecutor, witness pointing out accused sitting in Court----May raise only a suspicion but cannot be treated as legal proof. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164----Treatment of witness's statement recorded under S. 164 as evidence at trial -Illegal. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Presence of witness at time of occurrence not improbable in attending circumstances-Mere fact that witness was present at spot by chance-Cannot detract from his veracity. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154---First Information Report---Making of such report with great promptitude---Gives rise to conclusions that (i) eye-witnesses mentioned could not have been procured if not witnesses of occurrence; (ii) maker of F. I. R. must have either witnessed affair or was otherwise connected with it. (f) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 33---Sessions trial---Witness having given his statement before Inquiry Magistrate dying before his examination in Sessions trial-Statement of such prosecution witness tendered in evidence at trial in Sessions---Contention that accused did not fully cross-examine witness during commitment proceedings and as such statement should not be given much importance-Accused having had right and opportunity to cross-examine witness, failure to cross-examine him, held, will not affect use of statement under S. 33, particularly where (according to usual rule) cross-examination was not reserved. (g) Witness---- Corroboration----Crime empties proved by Ballistic Expert to have been fired from revolver recovered at accused's instance---Corroboratory circumstance against accused--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302. (h) Witness--- Corroboration---Recovery of clothes…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register