Khadim Hussain vs State S — 2024 YLR 2247 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

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

Khadim Hussain VS State S. 17(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 202 & 412---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Harrabah, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statements of accused persons---Infirmities---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother and nephew of the complainant during dacoity---Confessional statements of three appellants revealed that the same besides being vague in nature, lacked in material particulars, and were also self-destructive and contradictory to the prosecution case---Ages of the three appellants were not mentioned therein and even the date and time of the incident was not disclosed---Per prosecution while arresting the three appellants, three .30 bore pistols with live cartridges were shown to have been recovered from them on 12.08.2018 and then the alleged snatched money of Rs. 1850/-, Rs. 1300/- and Rs. 1300/- was shown to have been recovered from appellants, but the alleged recoveries etc had not been mentioned in the alleged confessional statements of the three appellants, although the same were recorded after the alleged recoveries---Alleged confessional statements would reveal that the same were more or less in the same sequence, containing almost the same words and phrases, which in ordinary course was not possible unless copied from each other or referred to at the time of their recording---Apparently, the Judicial Magistrate recorded the alleged confessional statements of the three appellants in a slipshod manner dealing with the case in a casual and perfunctory way although it involved capital punishment---Neither time for reflection nor proper warnings as required by subsection (3) of S.164, Cr.P.C were given---Investigating Officer produced all the three accused together before the Judicial Magistrate for recording their confessional statements and the three certificates under S.364, Cr.P.C, depicted that only 30 (thirty) minutes time was shown to have been given to each accused, which rendered the alleged confessional statements involuntary and invalid---Judicial Magistrate was shown to have recorded their alleged confessional statements each containing three pages by consuming only 15 minutes on each alleged confessional statement, which was incomprehensible---Admittedly, the questionnaires with all the answers of the three accused and the requisite certificates appended on the foot of all the three alleged confessional statements besides being vague were also typed ones and they from their face did not conform to the requirements of law as contained in the provisions of S.364, Cr.P.C---Confessional statement had to be read over to the accused were to accord assurance that his words had been faithfully taken down, thereafter the signature of the accused were to be taken at the end of his statement in token of its correctness, making it conformable to what he declared to be the truth---Course adopted by the Judicial Magistrate in recording the alleged confessional statements of the three accused completely in negation of the mandate of the law, could not be approved---Where the law provided a procedure for doing a thing in particular method and manner that thing should be done in that prescribed manner and in no other way and if anything was done contrary to that manner, it shall be taken as if it had never been done---Manifestly, the alleged confessional statements purported to be of the three accused besides being involuntary, untrue and unbelievable, had also not been recorded in accordance with the law and thus were of no help to the prosecution, which deserved to be excluded from consideration---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Khadim Hussain vs State S — 2024 YLR 2247 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR