P L D 1978 Quetta 1 (PLP)
$HAU 'KAT SAEED-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1978 Quetta 1 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | -- S. 164 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 21-Confession Delay-Relevancy-Rules of admissibility-Prescribe no limit regard ing time of detention preceding recording of confession-Mere fact of confession having been recorded after 24 hours of deten tion-Would not make confession inadmissible-Confession cannot be ruled out solely on ground of delay except by reference to other evidence attending confession-Every confession to be considered on its merits in light of surrounding facts and circumstances-Tooh v. State 1975 P Cr. L J 440 overruled.-Delay-Confession. |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hayee Kureshi, Actg. C. J., M. A. Rashid and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhary, JJ |
| Parties | $HAU 'KAT SAEED-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1978 Quetta 1 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1978 Quetta 1 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- S. 164 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 21-Confession Delay-Relevancy-Rules of admissibility-Prescribe no limit regard ing time of detention preceding recording of confession-Mere fact of confession having been recorded after 24 hours of deten tion-Would not make confession inadmissible-Confession cannot be ruled out solely on ground of delay except by reference to other evidence attending confession-Every confession to be considered on its merits in light of surrounding facts and circumstances-Tooh v. State 1975 P Cr. L J 440 overruled.-Delay-Confession. bench comprising: Abdul Hayee Kureshi, Actg. C. J., M. A. Rashid and Abdul Qadeer Chaudhary, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1978 Quetta 1 (PLP) ($HAU 'KAT SAEED-Applicant Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Muhammad for Appellant.
- Date of hearing ; 30th July 1977.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 164 read with Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 21-Confession Delay-Relevancy-Rules of admissibility-Prescribe no limit regard ing time of detention preceding recording of confession-Mere fact of confession having been recorded after 24 hours of deten tion-Would not make confession inadmissible-Confession cannot be ruled out solely on ground of delay except by reference to other evidence attending confession-Every confession to be considered on its merits in light of surrounding facts and circumstances-[Tooh v. State 1975 P Cr. L J 440 overruled].-[Delay-Confession]. Tooh v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 440 overruled. Hashim v. The State P L D 1960 Kar. 160 and Harruo v. The State P L D 1960 Kar. 817 distinguished. Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada v. Sohbat Khan and 3 others 19772 S C M R 363 and Muhammad Karim v. The State P L D 1976 Posh. 135 Tel. Muhammad Aslam Chishiti for the Co-accused. Muhammad Ahmed Mirza, A .-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. A. RASHID, J.
I agree. ABDUL QADBBR CBAUDHARY, J.
I agree. S. A. H. Reference answered accordingly.