Citation Name: 2025 YLR 816 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Zeeshan alias Shan vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 816 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Zeeshan alias Shan VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Second statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C.---Legality---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by inflicting churri blow---Prosecution case primarily rested on the evidence of three eye-witnesses who according to their evidence all saw the accused (appellant) stabbing the deceased to death---Question of the murder by the appellant in respect of evidence of eye-witnesses that they had seen the appellant stabbing the deceased was put to the appellant in his first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement---Thereafter, the prosecution moved an application to call two further witnesses being the MLO in respect of the medical evidence and the Judicial Magistrate in respect of S. 164 Cr.P.C statement which he recorded---Such application was allowed and the two said witnesses gave evidence---Thereafter the trial Court recorded a second further statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C---All the parties were in agreement that after recording two new witnesses the first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement was of no legal effect and a second fresh S. 342 Cr.P.C statement had to be recorded---Record showed that the Trial Court had tried to record a further statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C apparently in continuation of the first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement of the appellant, however, there was no provision in law/concept which allowed a further S. 342 Cr.P.C statement to be made in continuation of the first S. 342 Cr.P.C which was limited to new witnesses which had been recorded and after the evidence of two witnesses had been recorded in between the two separate S. 342 Cr.P.C statements---S. 342 Cr.P.C statement must be recorded afresh, if it had not already been recorded, at the completion of the prosecution case which would lead to there being one final S. 342 Cr.P.C statement encompassing each piece of evidence which the prosecution intended to rely on to convict the accused---After recording the two additional witnesses pursuant to the prosecution application under S. 540, Cr.P.C the first S. 342 Cr.P.C statement fell away entirely and the S. 342 Cr.P.C statement of the appellant had to be recorded afresh putting to him any question which tended to implicate him in the offence and gave him the opportunity to explain each and every question before it could be relied upon to convict the appellant---Thus, only the second S. 342 Cr.P.C statement could be relied upon in the case---Question that was not put to the appellant when his S. 342 Cr.P.C statement was re-recorded went to the heart of the prosecution case i.e. that the appellant stabbed the deceased and thereby committed his murder, had to be put to the appellant for his explanation---Fact remained that it was not done meaning that such piece of eye-witness evidence stood excluded from consideration which led to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2025 YLR 816 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case Zeeshan alias Shan vs State S — 2025 YLR 816 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR