PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 70 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case DILAWAR KHAN vs State Ss — 2024 PLD 70 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 PLD 70 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
PLD
Parties
Citation Name: 2024 PLD 70 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case DILAWAR KHAN vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 242; S. 243; S. 244; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898); Criminal Procedure Code

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

Judgment text as reported

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 70 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case DILAWAR KHAN VS State Ss. 3 & 14---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 242, 243, 244, 265-D, 265-E & 265-F---Illegally entering into Pakistan---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessional statement recorded at belated stage---Effect---Accused was charged that he being Afghani National entered into Pakistan without any legal documents---Record showed that charge against accused was framed on 26.12.2022 and he pleaded not guilty---Accused filed an application on 25.03.2023 through his counsel and voluntarily made an offer to make a confessional statement---Now the issue to be determined was whether the Trial Court was justified in accepting the offer of the appellant/ convict to record the appellant's/convict confessional statement at a belated stage, when admittedly as per the order sheet dated 26.12.2022 and impugned order the appellant/convict did not plead guilty and claimed trial in explicit terms or otherwise---Bare perusal of the provisions of Ss. 242, 243 & 244, Cr.P.C. clearly depicted that once a formal charge was framed and put to the appellant/convict, which was denied by him under S. 242, Cr.P.C. provisions of S. 243, Cr.P.C., shall ipso facto become inoperative and Court had to proceed under S. 244, Cr.P.C., by recording the prosecution evidence as well as that of the accused, if led in defence---Thus, the confessional statement made after so many dates of hearing when at the time of the framing charge, the appellant/convict in explicit terms had denied the same, was of no legal effect in the presence of Ss. 244, 265-D, 265-E & 265-F of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Hence, in the foregoing circumstances, the conviction and sentence inflicted by the Trial Court in terms of the impugned order dated 29-03-2023 was not sustainable in the eyes of the law, which was set-aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same in accordance with law, after recording the evidence.

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English