Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Before Agha Ali Hyder and Sajjad All Shah, JJ
FAIZ MUHAMMAD‑Appellant
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 1977, decided on 14th February, 1979.
(a) Criminal trial‑
‑‑ Witness‑Mere omission of name of an eye‑witness in F. I. R., lodged by a person not himself an eye‑witness‑Not sufficient to disbelieve such witness.‑[Witness].
Muhammad Anwar v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 1597 rel.
(b) Criminal trial‑
‑---Witness‑Mere relationship of eye‑witness‑Per se not sufficient to discredit such witness if otherwise truthful and corroborated by other circumstances.‑[Witness].
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑
Ss. 154 & 157‑Receipt and recording of first information report-- Not a condition precedent to criminal investigation‑Unsigned telegrams and telephonic messages‑Not F. I. Rs. within meaning of S. 154, Cr. P. C.‑Nothing, held, wrong with commencement of investigation on telephonic information and such information from complainant or informant and signed by him may be treated as F. I. R.‑[First Information Report].
Crown v. Faiz Muhammad A I R 1938 Lah. 787 ; Ghazi Khan v. The State P L D 1965 Quetta 33 ; Walloo and others v. The State P L D 1970 Kar. 677 ; Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1970 P Cr. L J 111 and Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed A I R 1945 P C 18 rel.
Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Appellant.
Ghulam Ali Agha for the State.
Date of hearing : 29th January, 1979.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer