ABDUL RAHEEM DAYO vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1157 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.

ABDUL RAHEEM DAYO VS State Ss. 302(b), 319 & 337---Railways Act (IX of 1890), Ss. 101, 126, 127 & 128---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, qatl-i-khata, jaifah, endangering the safety of the persons by any rash or negligent act or omission, intentional acts, omissions and negligence of functionaries, maliciously hurting or attempting to hurt persons travelling by railway or damaging property belonging to railway---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of the accused---Infirmities---Prosecution case was that due the negligence of accused, accident of train took place, and resultantly, 15 lives had been lost whereas 44 passenger had sustained grievous injuries---Allegedly, the accused recorded his confessional statement made before Sub-divisional Magistrate---In his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., the accused had denied to have made any confessional statement---Sub-Divisonal Magistrate (SDM) at the time of recording his evidence could not identify the accused before the Trial Court, rather he pointed out a person standing at Serial No.2 who on enquiry disclosed his name as accused---Said witness further made admission that he had not demanded CNIC from the accused to verify his identity at the time of recording confessional statement---Said witness further admitted in his cross-examination that he had not mentioned in the body of confessional statement that the accused was remanded to judicial custody---Sub-divisional Magistrate did not append the required certificate at the bottom of the confessional statement---Sub-divisional Magistrate had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not made any specific note in the body of the confessional statement that he had remanded the accused to judicial custody---However, the accused after recording his confessional statement was not remanded to judicial custody but was remanded to police custody---Where the accused is not remanded to judicial custody and is sent to police custody after recording his confessional statement, it is fatal to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused---Appeal was accordingly allowed.

ABDUL RAHEEM DAYO vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1157 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR