| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1974 SLG 3038 = 1974 SLD 3038 = 1974 PLD 450 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 1970, decided on 27th December 1973.
Presented By: Ataullah Sajjad, J
Barkatullah v. Emperor (1887) P R 32 (Cr.) ; Ahmad v. State P L D 1971 S C 720 and Abdul Qadeer v. Abdullah and others Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1970 rel. Ch. Amjad Khan for Appellant. Sh. Zia-ud-Din for A.-G. for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 1970, decided on 27th December 1973.
Presented By: Ataullah Sajjad, J
Barkatullah v. Emperor (1887) P R 32 (Cr.) ; Ahmad v. State P L D 1971 S C 720 and Abdul Qadeer v. Abdullah and others Criminal Appeal No. 47 of 1970 rel. Ch. Amjad Khan for Appellant. Sh. Zia-ud-Din for A.-G. for the State.
HABIB KHAN-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 24
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302, 304(I), 308, 300
(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872) S. 24-Confession-Admission or confession of accused-Has to be taken as a whole-Court cannot select one part and leave other-Such course however permissible if prosecution in situation to contradict any part and prove its falsity-Prosecution evidence totally rejected and nothing on record incompatible with exculpatory part of confession -Confession, in circumstances, has to be accepted. Where conviction is based on the admission or confession of an accused person, it has to be taken as a whole. The Court cannot select one part and leave the other unless the prosecution is in a situation to contradict any part of it or to prove that it is false. If the prosecution evidence has been totally rejected and there is nothing on record incompatible with the exculpatory part of the confession, admission or declaration of an accused person, it has to be accepted. To introduce a new rule to the effect that the Court may accept that part of the confession which appeals to its reason and reject that which strikes it as untrue or absurd would not be in con formity with the established rules of administration of justice in criminal matters. It tray result in cases being decided according to the individual assessment, inclination or whim of the Presiding Officers of Courts who no doubt are bound by law and rules laid thereunder, but as human beings differ from each other in their notions, attitude of mind, susceptibilities and power of perception. Balmakund v. Emperor A I R 1931 All. 1 and Rex v. Baqir 1948 L L R 256 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302, 304(I) & 308 read with S. 300, Exception 2-Murder- Private defence, right of-Strip of land between fields of parties claimed by accused to be under his cultivation and such claim not rebutted-Deceased party alleging such strip of land to have been marked as public path but land not proved to be marked as public path-Deceased and his companions going to till such strip of land-- Accused in circumstances, held, had right of private defence of property. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 304, 302 & 300-Applicability-Conviction under S. 304-Can be based only when…