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

Safar Khan vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 675 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2025 PCrLJ 675 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
PCRLJ
Parties
Safar Khan vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 316---Q; S. 22-A; S. 316

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

Safar Khan VS State S. 316---Qatl shibh-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Death due to custodial torture---Defence plea not established---Accused persons were Police Officials and deceased died in their custody during investigation of a criminal offence---Trial Court convicted the accused persons---Validity---According to complainant, he brought his son (deceased) and a relative in the Police Station and handed them over to the appellant, the then SHO of the said Police Station, but later his son was found dead in the police custody due to severe torture by the then SHO (appellant), Head Moharar and Munshi---Defence tried to shake the testimony of complainant, but failed to succeed---Testimony of complainant inspired confidence, which by all means sounded truthful---Complainant had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant and let go the real culprits---Other witness testified in line with the testimony of complainant and affirmed the fact that while he along with the complainant were present outside the police station, they heard the clamor of deceased---Testimony of said witness also went unshaken, despite lengthy cross-examination---Another witness/Santri deposed that on the fateful night on the direction of appellant, he brought deceased from Hawalaat and handed over his custody to him in the room of DSP, whereafter he went for his duty at the gate, whereas the SHO (appellant) locked the room from inside and that after 20 to 25 minutes, when he came back, he found deceased lying unconscious on the water tank, whereas the appellant and Head Moharar were standing nearby,whereafter Inspector took the deceased to the Hospital---Gunman testified that on the fateful night, while he was on patrol duty, at about 1:00 a.m., he was called to the Police Station, whereupon he went to the Police Station, where he found the deceased unconscious, who was taken to the Hospital in a vehicle, where doctors examined him, however, later he succumbed, whereafter he brought the deceased to the Civil Hospital---Santri and Gunman were cross-examined, but both of them remained firm and consistent, thus, their testimony went unshaken---Indisputably, the prosecution had proved the presence of the deceased in the custody of the appellant in the Police Station and being incharge, he was responsible for the safety and life of the deceased---Appellant had also not disputed the fact that the deceased got injured in the police station, however, he came up with the defence that while scaling the wall in order to escape, the deceased fell down and received the injuries, which culminated into his death---During proceedings under S.22-A, Cr.P.C, a report was submitted by the appellant himself, wherein he had admitted the custody of the appellant, thus, irresistibly, it had been established that the deceased died in the custody of the appellant---Nature of the injuries could not in any way be received by the deceased due to a fall while scaling the wall, thus, the plea of the appellant on the face of it seemed absurd, improbable and unconvincing---As the appellant had taken a specific plea, thus, he was obliged to have had discharged his burden of defence plea, but the appellant had failed to do the same---Appellant neither reported the matter nor did what he was obliged to do while discharging his duty, rather tried to cover up the incident by contesting and resisting the fair investigation, which conduct strengthened the stance of the prosecution---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt but due to certain extraneous circumstances, sentence awarded under S.316, P.P.C was reduced from 20 years to ten years---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ

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