Case Details

Citation(s)
1963 SLG 3187 = 1963 SLD 3187 = 1963 PLD 33
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Reference No. 46 of 1962, decided on 3rd October 1962.  
Presented By: Muhammad Sharif, J
M. A. Hafeez for the Government  
Respondent in person.   Abdul Haiy and Kh. Muhammad Shafi Amicus curiea.

SARKAR  

VERSUS

  MUHAMMAD YAQUB

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: Ss. 242 & 161

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-----   -----Ss. 242 & 161 -Examination of accused under S. 242-Court not to look into state ments recorded under S. 161-Statements made under S. 161 not substantial evidence-Statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161-Can help accused only if duly proved-Magistrate while examining accused under S. 242 putting case different from one put up by prosecution - Conviction set aside-Re-trial ordered.   (b) Criminal trial------   -----Court not furnishing copy of charge-sheet to accused required to be furnished by instructions of High Court-- Accused if prejudiced may complain but not prosecution. ORDER   A challan was put up against Muhammad, Yaqub accused -respondent in the Court of the A. D. M. Muzaffarabad, under section 304, A. P. C. The learned A. D. M. after recording the statement of the accused under section 242, Cr. P. C. on 5-6-62 convicted him under section 325, A. P. C. and sentenced him to two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5 or in default of payment of fine was ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment for one week. The prosecution went up in revision before the Sessions Judge against the order of conviction dated 5-6-62.   The learned Sessions Judge by order dated 17-7-62 has referred the proceedings to this Court with the recommendation that the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused-respondent be quashed and re-trial ordered. The grounds of the recommendation are :-   That the particulars of the offence explained to the accused at the time of examination are not in conformity with the facts stated in the challan.   That even if the intention o1' the accused was to cause grievous hurt only on graveand sudden provocation, then the appropriate section for which he would have been convicted is section 335, A. P. C. and not 325 A. P. C.   That in the absence of the prosecution evidence it cannot be said that the offencecould be constituted whether one under section 325 or 304, A. P. C,   That the trial Court had ignored the instructions of the High Court when it failed tofurnish the accused with copy of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register