ZAFAR IQBAL vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 1152 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ZAFAR IQBAL VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of witness---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the father of complainant by firing---Record showed that on 15.4.2016, father of the accused recorded his statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C., where on one hand, he admitted presence of all the three in his house and on the other, he charged the accused for the murder of deceased---Matter did not end here, rather a specific question was put to the accused regarding the statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. recorded by his father, to which he replied that the statement was the result of pressure and physical torture---Defence objected that statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. had no evidentiary value, as on one hand, it was recorded in absence of the accused and on the other, the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the same had not been produced---True that the matter was not cross-examined and equally true that the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the same had not been produced, but it could not be ignored that the accused while recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. did not deny the document, but questioned the manner it was executed by terming it to be the outcome of threat, pressure and coercion and his that stance was reiterated by his father, who appeared as a defence witnesses to favour his son---Statement in such eventuality, was accepted to have been recorded, but stress was on its voluntariness, when so, the non-examination of the concerned Judicial Magistrate would not help---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in bringing home charges against the accused, through confidence inspiring evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

ZAFAR IQBAL vs State S — 2021 PCrLJ 1152 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PCRLJ