Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1981, decided on 5th September, 1983.

-- Ss. 164 & 265-J-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Accused provided opportunity to cross-examine witness while his statement under S. 164, Cr. P. C. recorded-Accused not given sufficient time to engage counsel-Contention that there had not been compliance of S. 265-J, Cr. P. C., held, not devoid of force-Such statement not a substantive piece of evidence.

Abdul Hakeem and another v. The State P L D 1982 Kar. 1975 ref.

-- Ss. 164 & 256-J-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Evidenec Act (I of 1872), S. 145-Prosecution after declaring witness hostile confronting him under S. 145, Evidence Act, 1872 with relevant portions of his statement made under S. 164, Cr. P. C.--Court, held, could look into statement made by such witness and also to those portions of statement, put to him in cross-examination.

Abdul Hakeem and another v. The State P L D 1982 Kar. 1975 ref.

-- S. 302-Evidence, appreciation of - Murder -Broad daylight occurrence---F. I. R. lodged within half an hour-Accused related to complainant-Defence unable to bring on record any plausible motive on part of complainant to implicate accused falsely in substitution of real culprit-Motive, if any, was do part of accused to kill deceased-Prosecution witness having no motive to falsely implicate accused-Fact that witness was on friendly terms with complainant party, not sufficient to render him interested witness to extent of falsely implicating innocent person in commission of offence, entailing capital punishment-Neither complainant party nor witness having any motive to falsely implicate accused in substitution of real culprit-Fact that accused was apprehended by police constables, while running away from place of occurrence not shaken in cross-examination - Testimonies of prosecution witnesses sufficient to sustain conviction - Testimony of an eye-witness was sufficient as it was quality of testimony, which determined fate of case and not quantity or number of witnesses --Even if recoveries were to be ignored on ground that mashirs had turned hostile, factum of arrest near place of occurrence while running away stood proved by sufficient ocular evidence-Accused inflicting seven injuries on vital part of body of deceased with full vengeance-Trial Court, held, took lenient view in awarding sentence of imprisonment for life instead of death in circumstances ---Conviction and sentence however, maintained in circumstances.

Shaikh Ayaz for Appellant.

Syed Zawar Hussain Jafery, Addl. A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 5th September, 1983.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.