Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 164

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 35, 37

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) S. 302 - Eye-witness interested and related (being daughter of deceased)-Testimony requires exceptionally strong corroboration Testimony of such witness not corroborated either by any independent witness or medical or circumstantial evidence-Not relied upon-Prosecution witness declared hostile and examined as Court witness Statement made by him under S. 164, Cr. P. C. cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence corroborating testimony of interested witness-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164-[Soomro v. The State P L D 1972 Kar. 500 dissented from]. Soomro v. The State P L D 1972 Kar. 500 dissented from. Nazir and others v. The State P L D 1962 S C 269; Wasiullah v. Mirza Ali and others P L D 1963 S C 25; Thoba and another v. The State P L D 1963 S C 40; Bagh Ali and 4 others v. The State P L D 1973 S C 321 and Mamand and others v. Emperor A I R 1946 P C 45 ref. (b) N. W. F. P. Police Rules, 1937 R. 22, 48 and Evidence Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 35 & 77-Entries in Register II maintained under r. 22.48 of Police Rules, 1937-Admis sible in evidence and can be proved by production of certified copies. Date of hearing: 8th November 1974. M                                                                                                                          JUDGMENT SHAH ZAMAN BABAR, J.---Mohammad Sadiq aged 35 years, son of Abdur Rahman, resident of village Mian Isa Police Station Batagram, Tehsil Char sadda, District Peshawar was challaned to Court under section 302(34, P. P. C on the allegations that on 22-12-1972 at 8 a.m. he alongwith three unknown persons in furtherance of their common intention committed the murder of Saifur Rahim of the same village by firing at him. At the conclusion of the commitment proceedings as per order dated 27-11-1973, Mohammad Sadiq accused was committed to the Court of Session to stand his…