MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs State S — 2022 MLD 218 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.

MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ VS State S.302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife and her sister by firing---Accused got recorded his confessional statement before the Naib Tehsildar---Prosecution had produced Naib Tehsildar who had stated in his examination-in-chief that on receipt of information of the occurrence, he had proceeded to the spot along with other personnel of Levies, where he had found accused tied with a tree being apprehended by people of the locality after commission of the offence---Accused had been released there-from and taken in custody by the said witness---Said witness had further stated that on same day, the accused had been produced before him for recording his confessional statement, where he had given a time of 15-20 minutes to accused for reflection and had thereafter recorded his confessional statement---In the opening line of his cross-examination, said witness submitted that he had also conducted partial investigation in the case---Naib Tehsildar was not having any legal capacity to exercise the powers of a Magistrate---Statement of the accused recorded before Naib Tehsildar could not, therefore, be considered as a valid confessional statement recorded before a Magistrate---Said confessional statement was, therefore, inadmissible in evidence---Proceedings conducted by Political Authorities under erstwhile Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) or Fata Interim Governance Regulation (FIGR) might be given protection under Art. 264 of the Constitution, provided it had taken place during currency of the FCR or FIGR and not after its repeal---On the date of recording confessional statement of the accused, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, had been applicable in the case and a confessional statement not recorded before the Magistrate could not be considered as a valid piece of evidence---Confessional statement when was taken out of consideration, then no direct evidence of commission of the offence by the accused had been available with the prosecution---Record showed that there had been evidence of facts occurring after the incident, but no evidence of the actual occurrence had been available with the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstance. Head Notes

MOHAMMAD SHAFIQ vs State S — 2022 MLD 218 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD