| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3006 = 2001 SLD 3006 = 2001 PLD 1 |
Azad J. & K
Criminal Appeals Nos. 5 and 7 of 2000, heard on 29th June, 2000. (On appeals from the judgment of the Shariat Court dated 1622000 in Criminal Appeals Nos.2, 4, 28, 30 and 31 of ,1998).
Presented By: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ., Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, JJ
Sher Zaman Chaudhry and Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Appellants (in both Appeals). Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq, Addl. AdvocateGeneral for the State (in both Appeals). Muhammad Abdul Khaliq Ansari and Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alain, Advocate for the Complainants (in both Appeals).
Criminal Appeals Nos. 5 and 7 of 2000, heard on 29th June, 2000. (On appeals from the judgment of the Shariat Court dated 1622000 in Criminal Appeals Nos.2, 4, 28, 30 and 31 of ,1998).
Presented By: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ., Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, JJ
Sher Zaman Chaudhry and Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Appellants (in both Appeals). Ch. Muhammad Mushtaq, Addl. AdvocateGeneral for the State (in both Appeals). Muhammad Abdul Khaliq Ansari and Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alain, Advocate for the Complainants (in both Appeals).
MUHAMMAD SARWAR and othersAppellants
VERSUS
THE STATE and othersRespondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302, 34
Law: West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, (XX of 1965)
Section: 13, 20
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 428, 356, 360
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss. 302/34-West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss. 13 ,& 20 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 428, 356 & 360Appreciation of evidenceMode adopted by the Trial Court in recording the joint statements of the two female witnesses was not legally justified and the same fell within the purview of additional evidenceShariat Court, therefore, was not bound to remand the case to Trial Court after setting aside the . sentence and conviction of accused and it had rightly. exercised the power under S.428, Cr.P.C.Statements of witnesses in the criminal case had to be recorded separately in view of Ss.356 & 360; Cr.P.C. as there was no concept in law for recording joint statements as done by the Trial Court=Neither Criminal Procedure Code nor Qanun.eShahadat or any other law had provided that the female witnesses in a criminal case should be examined jointly Shariat Court had rightly found that the two female witnesses in the criminal case were to be examined as laid down in QanuneShahadat and the Criminal Procedure Code which were the laws governing the trials in criminal cases Joint statements of the two female witnesses in the case even could not be regarded as the statement of one witness or the otherJudgment of Shariat Court directing the Trial Court to record the statement of one of the female witnesses was amended in terms that the statements of the concerned witnesses should be recorded by the Trial Court as required by the relevant lawAppeals were disposed of accordingly. State v. Basharat Ahmad PLD 1984 Sh.C.(AJ&K) 16; State v. Nazir PLD 1986 Sh.C.(AJ&K) 143; Al=Qur'an. Surah AlBaqara, Verse 282; Mujahid Shah v., State Criminal Revision No.70 of 1995; Emperor v. Lakshman Ramshet Alwe AIR 1929 Born. 309; Munshi v. Muzaffar AIR 1938 Cal. 781;, Muhammad Abdus Samad v. Emperor AIR 1925 Cal. 172; Jabbar Ahmed v. State 1996 PCr.LJ 1264; Muhammad Amin and another v. The State 1987 PCr.LJ 1922; Ukha Kolhe v. The State of Moharashtra AIR 1963 SC 1531; Latif v. State 1992 PCr.LJ 116; Donald Dixon AIR 1938 Mad. 900; TafhimulQur'an by Maulana Abul A'ala Maudoodi, pp.219, 220; The Holy Qur'an,…