| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1952 SLG 157 1952 SLD 157 1952 PLD 374 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1952, decided on 22nd May 1952, from the order of Chaudhri Fazl-i-Ilahi, Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, dated the 28th January 1952, convicting the appellant.
MUHAMMAD MUNIR C.J. AND MUHAMMAD, JAN, J
S. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, and A. A. K. Lodhi, for Appellant. Muhammad Sharif, Assistant to the Advocate-General, for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1952, decided on 22nd May 1952, from the order of Chaudhri Fazl-i-Ilahi, Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, dated the 28th January 1952, convicting the appellant.
MUHAMMAD MUNIR C.J. AND MUHAMMAD, JAN, J
S. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, and A. A. K. Lodhi, for Appellant. Muhammad Sharif, Assistant to the Advocate-General, for
Respondent.
SHAMMUN (SHAMMAN)
VS
CROWN
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)----------S. 342-Confession not put to accused by either Committing Magistrate or Sessions Judge-Conviction unsustainable-Nature of examination under S. 342 Cr. P. C. indicated. The confession of the accused was not put to him under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure either when he was examined by the Committing Magistrate or when he was questioned at the trial after the close of the prosecution evidence. Held, conviction of accused was unsustainable Rahim Bakhsh v. Crown P L D 1952 F C 7, rel. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C.J.-This is an appeal from a conviction and a sentence of death. The appellant is Shammun who has been found guilty of having murdered Lal on 13th April, 1951. The main evidence against the appellant was a confession which he is alleged to have made on 15th April, 1951, to Lal (P. W. 10). But this confession was not put to the appellant under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure either when he was examined by the Committing Magistrate or when he was questioned at the trial after the close of the prosecution evidence. On the authority of Rahim Bakhsh v. Crown P L D 1952 F C 1, therefore, this conviction is unsustainable. We set aside the conviction and the sentence and order the appellant to be retried from the stage when he was examined by the Additional Sessions Judge after the close of the prosecution case. The learned Judge will specifically put the confession to him and ask him whether he made that confession and, if so, in what circumstances. It is high time that Sessions Judges and Magistrates understood and rightly applied the provisions of section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Proper questioning of an accused person is an essential constituent of a fair trial and is as necessary as the framing and explaining of the charge to him or putting to him the precise accusation against him. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge did no more than put to the appellant his statement recorded by the Committing Magistrate and ask him whether he had mane that statement, whether the statement was correct and whether he had anything more to say. This procedure does…
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