Mst. RAINAZ vs State arts — 2024 PCrLJ 20 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.

Mst. RAINAZ VS State arts. 39 & 40---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Disclosure/Pointation allegedly made by the accused---Investigating Officer, responsibility of---Scope---Trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant (accused/lady), to imprisonment for life, primarily on the basis of her confession before the Magistrate---Record revealed that the site plan, having been prepared at the instance of the complainant, reflected that after days of the preparation of same a certain point (No.5) was added after nomination and on arrest of the appellant/accused---Investigating Officer adduced in his statement as a prosecution witness that he prepared a memo of disclosure (ordinarily called as 'pointation'), and had also made addition of said point with red ink in the site plan already prepared---It was not clear at which time exactly the appellant/accused made poitation of the place of occurrence---Secondly, the disclosure of the appellant/accused could not be considered as discovery for the reason the site plan was already prepared---Police Investigators had started the said practice under the grab of discovery within the meaning of art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which was totally wrong and illegal---Investigators tended to present the discovery/pointation like a confession of the accused, which was not allowed under art. 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---No doubt, the provision of the art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provided that so much of such information as was brought to light in consequences of discovery, might be proved---Information obtained in such a manner, as was the situation in the present case, did not attract the application of the art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, for the reason that the same did not amount to discovery as the I.O had already seen the scene of occurrence and had prepared its site plan---Merely taking of the accused to the same place and verifying from her the place of her presence and other details were not sufficient---Legally, such evidence was inadmissible and should, in no case, be allowed to be brought on the record, let alone believing in it---Disclosure, in the present case, was not covered under arts. 39 & 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and in such circumstances, the recovery of pistol, the empty and the FSL Report were of no legal value---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellant/accused---High Court set aside the sentence and conviction passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant/accused---appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. RAINAZ vs State arts — 2024 PCrLJ 20 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ