Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI vs State S — 2023 YLR 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI VS State S. 164--- Delay in recording confessional statement of accused---Scope---Confessional statement could not be used as substantive evidence of fact when there was clear unexplained delay in recording the same. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI VS State S. 164--- Confessional statement---Scope---Judicial confession recorded in one case could not be relied/used in another case as each and every case had its own particular facts and circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Medical evidence and ocular account---Contradictions---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused in furtherance of common intention made firing upon the friends of the complainant, due to which one was died and other was injured---Did not attract a prudent mind that the victim who had received three bullets, two in his neck and one on his back, was in a position to stand up and see people who were firing and running away---Man injured in the back and neck could stand up was unbelievable---Not only the said circumstances rendered the evidence of the witness unfit and unreliable but the failure of the witness himself and the prosecution to produce any medical certificate confirming injuries, if any, to the injured witness rendered the entire incident and his injury unbelievable---Conviction and sentence of the accused could not be upheld, in circumstances---appeal against conviction was allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused and injured witness---Delay of about five years in recording the statements of accused and witness---Effect---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused in furtherance of common intention made firing upon the friends of the complainant, due to which one died and other was injured---Record showed that as per prosecution story, two unidentified persons had suddenly opened fire at around Maghrib prayer time from the back of the victims---Without any identification parade after more than five years, the prosecution had produced the accused before the Judicial Magistrate---Witness who was injured with one bullet in his back and two in his neck after five years of incident claimed that the suspected accused present in court was one of those who fired upon them---Trial Court failed to appreciate that the statement of injured was not subjected to the test of cross-examination and it was even otherwise unbelievable because it was not supported with medical evidence regarding his injuries and his treatment---Conviction and sentence of the accused could not be upheld, in circumstances---appeal against conviction was allowed. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI VS State Ss. 302, 324 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused and injured witness--- Infirmities---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused along with his co-accused in furtherance of common intention made firing upon the friends of the complainant, due to which one died and other was injured---Statements of accused and injured were recorded by the Judicial Magistrates---Judicial Magistrate in his examination-in-chief stated that at the time of recording of statement of witness under S.164, Cr.P.C., both, the witnesses and the accused, were produced before him after fulfilling all legal requirements, however, in his examination-in-chief neither he had confirmed that he had not informed the accused that he was entitled to engage a counsel to cross-examine the witness nor he verified from the accused or the Investigating Officer that accused had been served with the notice under S.160, Cr.P.C.---Even copy of statement of witness under S.161, Cr.P.C. was not provided to the accused before recording statement of the witness---Record did not show that even Judicial Magistrate himself had with him copy of statement of witness under S. 161, Cr.P.C., at the time of recording his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Record transpired that the Judicial Magistrate handed over custody of the accused back to the same Investigating Officer---Confessional statement of accused was recorded and as stated by the Investigating Officer in his examination-in-chief, he interrogated the accused in the lockup of Police Station where the accused was confined in some other case and re-arrested him in presence of mashirs---accused had confessed his guilt in the present case before the Investigating Officer, meaning thereby that after confessional statement the accused was not sent to judicial lockup---Conviction and sentence of the accused could not be upheld, in circumstances---appeal against conviction was allowed.

Syed MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI vs State S — 2023 YLR 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR