| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4873 = 2026 SLD 4873 = 2025 PLJ 211 |
Sindh High Court
Crl. A. No. 729 of 2019
Presented By: Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, J.
Ms. Fariyal Ishaque and Mr. Sathi M. Ishaque, Advocates for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for
Respondent M/s. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi Irshad Ahmed Jatoi, Advocates for Complainant. Dates of hearing: 13.11.2024.
Crl. A. No. 729 of 2019
Presented By: Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, J.
Ms. Fariyal Ishaque and Mr. Sathi M. Ishaque, Advocates for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Addl. Prosecutor General, Sindh for
Respondent M/s. Muhammad Ashraf Kazi Irshad Ahmed Jatoi, Advocates for Complainant. Dates of hearing: 13.11.2024.
ZEESHAN @ SHAN--Appellant
VERSUS
STATE--Respondent
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 342
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 342--Statement of accused--It is well settled by now that if a question regarding a piece of evidence is not put to an appellant in his S. 342, Cr.P.C. statement for explanation that piece of evidence cannot be relied upon by trial Court in order to convict accused. [Para 16] A 2016 SCMR 267. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 342--Statement of accused--When say an appeal is remanded for limited purpose of re recording evidence of one particular PW because accused was denied opportunity to cross examine him Courts almost always remand case to trial Court for limited purpose of re recording witnesses’ evidence before defence counsel and allowing defence counsel chance to cross examine witness and there after record a fresh accused S. 342, Cr.P.C. statement and then after hearing parties re writing judgment--The Courts as a rule do not remand case with a direction to further record a Section 5.342, Cr.P.C. statement in continuation of earlier 5.342, Cr.P.C. statement limited only to what re examined witness gave evidence about--Thus, after exclusion of eye witness evidence which was not put to appellant in his S. 342, Cr.P.C. statement for explanation Court find that prosecution has not proved its case against appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and as such appellant is acquitted of charge, appeal is allowed and impugned judgment is set aside--The appellant shall be released unless he is wanted in any other custody case--Appeal allowed. [Para 19 & 21] B & C Ms. Fariyal Ishaque and Mr. Sathi M. Ishaque, Advocates for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Awan,…