MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs State Ss — 2021 SCMR 1914 SUPREME-COURT

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

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State Ss. 161 & 172---Examination of witnesses by the police---Statement of witness recorded in case diary (zimni) prepared under S. 172, Cr.P.C. instead of being recorded separately---Whether such statement constituted a witness statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Held, that under S. 161(3), Cr.P.C. the police officer was to reduce in writing any statement made to him in the course of examination of any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case---Police officer was to make a separate record of the statement of each such person but in case the statement of such a person, recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO), was embodied in the case diary instead of being recorded separately, it was at best a procedural lapse on the part of the IO but the statement itself did not lose its character as a statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Distinction between Ss. 161 & 172, Cr.P.C. was that while one dealt with the recording of the statement of witnesses / persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, the other was the information or opinion of the IO which he gathered and formed during the course of the investigation --- So if while recording his opinion in the case diary, the IO also recorded the statement of a witness, any such statement continued to pass for a statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and did not become a part of the case diary under S. 172, Cr.P.C. Citation Name: 2021 SCMR 1914 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS State Ss. 302, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry--- Investigating Officer (IO) categorically stated before the Court that on the basis of the statements of eight independent witnesses recorded by him, the accused, even though present at the site of the occurrence, was neither involved in the commission of the offence nor was he carrying any weapon---Two of the co-accused had a specific role in the crime report but were granted bail by the High Court on similar statement of the IO that they while present at the site of occurrence were not involved in the commission of the offence and were not armed with any weapon---In view of the statement of the IO supported by the statement of the witnesses there were sufficient grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the accused---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to post-arrest bail.

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs State Ss — 2021 SCMR 1914 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR