Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 164

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---S. 164---Judicial confession---Mere fact that person making confession remains in police custody for some time does not lead to conclusion that confession was tutored and if full opportunity had been given to accused to explain circumstances in which confession was made, then confession must be deemed to have been voluntarily made and could be relied upon. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada v. The State PLD 1972 SC 363 and Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1964 SCMR 521 rel. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- ---S. 164---Judicial confession---Omission of Magistrate to sign certificate on Confession Form amounts to an irregularity which can be cured by examining Magistrate in Court. Chandar v. Crown PLD 19.50 Quetta 1 rel. Penal Code (XLV of 18611)-- ---S. 302---Motive---When there is sufficient ocular evidence of unimpeachable character to commission of crime it is not necessary for prosecution to prove motive.--[Motive]. Syed Mushtaq Ahmad v. Siddiqullah PI,D 1975 and Akhtar Ali v. The State 1968 SCMR 781 rel. Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- ---S. 302---Recovery---Contention of defence counsel that prosecution witnesses claimed that accused was armed with two Chhuris but only one was recovered by Police and thus evidence of recovery of weapon of offence was doubtful was repelled holding that it was not a case of contradiction but of exaggeration and mere exaggeration by an eve-witness was no ground for discarding his evidence.-[Recovery]. Bachal v. The State PLD 19)3 Kar. 1(102 rel. Penal Code (XLV of 1800)--   .--S. 302---Appreciation of evidence--Minor contradictions by themselves do not lead to conclusion that whatever witnesses stated on salient features of case and which conformed to other evidence on record must be discarded. Roshan v. The State PLD 1977 SC 5777 rel. Penal Code (XLV of 1W)-- ---S. 302---Appreciation of evidence---Three of the eve-witnesses were closely related to deceased as well as to accused and were inmates of house where offence took place and there was' no reason to suspect that they would falsely implicate accused and let go actual culprit---Other two eye-witnesses were neighbours with whom…