| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 303 1961 SLD 303 1961 PLD 200 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1960, decided on 18th January, 1961:
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE AKBAR B. Z. KAIKAUS, AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Jan Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan, instructed by Iftikhan-din Ahmad, Attorney, M. Anwar, Advocate General, West Pakistan (R. A. Jeremy, Advocate Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Ijaz
Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1960, decided on 18th January, 1961:
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., S. A. RAHMAN, FAZLE AKBAR B. Z. KAIKAUS, AND HAMOODUR RAHMAN, JJ
Jan Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Nazir Ahmad Khan, Attorney General for Pakistan, instructed by Iftikhan-din Ahmad, Attorney, M. Anwar, Advocate General, West Pakistan (R. A. Jeremy, Advocate Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Ijaz
IBRAHIM AND others--Appellants
VS
THE STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Private defence------ ----Right of-Negatived where accused delivered a "sustained" attack while attack on them was short-lived Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 100. Where the disproportion between the injuries the accused had received which indicated a short-lived attack delivered with no great force by the deceased and their companions, and the injuries which the accused and their party caused clearly proved that the attack was sustained and carried out with great determination and without regard to the consequences, it was held that the circumstance negatived the plea of self-defence. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)------ -----S. 211-Accused, when questioned by committing Court prior to charge whether they would produce defence evidence, stating that they would do so only in Sessions Court if necessary--Failure to ask them, after charge, to give list .of defence witnesses does not vitiate trial. The ' accused after having been charged by the Committing Magistrate were not asked to give a list of witnesses whom they wished to call in their defence but when questioned by the Committing Court prior to the charge, whether they would produce defence each of them answered in the following words:- "Yes, in the Sessions Court, if necessary". On the question whether the failure on the part of the Committing Magistrate to ask the accused to give a list of defence witnesses after charging them rendered the trial illegal. Held; that trial was not vitiated. The duty imposed upon the Committing Magistrate by section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, no doubt, must be interpreted, as a concomitant of a right vested in the accused to obtain cancellation of a charge framed by a Committing Magistrate by invoking the discretionary power of the Magistrate to receive evidence for the accused persons under section 212 of the Code, but here- each of the accused persons when, questioned before the charge bad made it clear that he did not wish to produce any defence evidence at any stage earlier than the trial in the Sessions Court. In other words, each of the accused persons was prepared to go to -trial on the charge which the Magistrate was proposing to frame,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492