Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 888 2004 SLD 888 2004 SCMR 331
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Shariat Appeal No.3(S) of 2001, decision dated: 9-04-2003.(On appeal from the judgment dated 13-5-1998 of the Federal Shariat Court, Quetta Bench, passed in Criminal Appeal No.61 (Q) and Criminal Murder Reference No.2(Q) of 1997)
JUSTICES QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, CHAIRMAN, HAMID ALI MIRZA ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, DR. ALLAMA KHALID MEHMOOD AND DR. RASHID AHMED, JULLUNDHARI, MEMBERS
Malik Jehanzeb Tammon Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the State.

KHUDA BUKHSH

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---S.302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973); Art.203-F (2B)---Leave to appeal was granted to accused by Supreme Court to consider the evidentiary value of his confession recorded after more than fifteen days, after Court hours, and to reappraise the other evidence on record to find out as to whether the same could safely form the basis of conviction. (b) Evidence --- ----Circumstantial evidence---Requirement of 'proof---Every link in circumstantial evidence has to be proved by cogent and convincing evidence---Role of prosecution agency in collecting evidence against the accused in such cases being very important; must be above board and free from any doubt and suspicion---In a case depending entirely on circumstantial evidence motive also plays an important role---Prosecution above all has to establish on record that every piece of circumstantial evidence fits in with another piece of such evidence in the chain and corroborates each other. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S.302---Appraisal of evidence--Prosecution witnesses had categorically deposed at the trial that on the day of incident they had seen the deceased in the company of accused---Last seen evidence, thus, did not suffer from any exception or illegality and had been rightly believed by the Courts below as true---Pointation of the place by the accused where he had killed the deceased and the recovery of the number plate of the motorcycle at his instance thrown- by him after .the commission of the offence, was' sufficient incriminating circumstantial evidence to connect him with the crime as both the said places were in his exclusive knowledge ---Factum of murder of the deceased by fire-arm was corroborated by medical evidence--- Confessional statement wherein the accused while narrating the entire episode had admitted his guilt of having killed the deceased for robbing his motorcycle which had been recovered from his possession, had further supported the prosecution case---Belated recording of the said confessional statement and that too after Court hours was not detrimental to the prosecution case as the accused during the entire trial did not claim the same, to have…
🔒
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