Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1271 2004 SLD 1271 2004 SCMR 1703
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition No.296 of 2003, decision dated: 14-10-2003.(On appeal from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, Abbottabad, dated 3-7-2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2002)
HAMID ALI MIRZA AND TANVIR AHMED KHAN, JJ
Dr. Babar Awan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Neme for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD TAHIR KHAN-

VS

THE STATE and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---F.I.R. was promptly lodged which had completely ruled out the possibility of any deliberation or consultation---Ocular account inspired confidence and could not be discarded simply due to the relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased, who had substantiated their presence at the scene of occurrence---Motive for the incident was proved on record---Medical evidence was in line with ocular testimony---Crime empty secured from the spot had matched with the unlicensed pistol recovered from the accused---Dead body of the deceased as well as the blood-stained earth were taken into possession from the shop of accused---Confessional statement of accused had been recorded by Magistrate complying with all the requirements of law which itself was of voluntary nature and had corroborated the prosecution evidence on all material points---Plea of alibi taken by accused was an afterthought and was not substantiated on record---Omission of the number of the case in the inquest report which might be due to inadvertence or inefficiency of the Investigating Officer, would not discredit its authenticity nor would adversely affect the investigation---Leave to appeal was declined to accused in circumstances. Muhammad Tariq v. State NLR 1982 Cr.LJ 452; Tariq Aziz v. State 1982 PCr.LJ 396; Amjad v. State 1987 PCr.LJ 1773; Ibrahim v. State 1968 SCMR 1240 and Allah Baksh v. State PLD 1978 SC 171 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 156---Investigation into cognizable cases---Police Rules 1934, Chapt. XXV, 8.25.35---Inquest report---Entries in the inquest report are not substantive evidence---Mere omission of the number of the case in the inquest report which may be either due to inadvertence or inefficiency of the Investigating Officer, would neither discredit its authenticity nor would adversely affect the investigation---Rule 25.35 of Chapt.XXV of the Police Rules, 1934, is directory in nature. Muhammad Tariq v. State NLR 1982 Cr.LJ 452: Tariq Aziz v State 1982 PCr.LJ 396; Amjad v. State 1987 PCr.LJ 1773; Ibrahim v. State 1968 SCMR 1240 and Allah Baksh v. State PLD 1978 SC 171…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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