1995 P Cr (PLP)
SARDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1995 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SARDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 P Cr (PLP) (SARDAR ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Ijaz Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Khadim Hussain Bhatti for the State. ,
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Joint extra- judicial confession made by accused was not admissible
No direct evidence was available and the prosecution case, prima facie, rested on Wajtakkar evidence
Case of accused fell under S.497(2), Cr.P.C. requiring further inquiry
Accused was admitted to bail accordingly.
S. 302
Joint extra-judicial confession
Extra-judicial confession made by accused jointly is not admissible in evidence.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
S. 302
Joint extra-judicial confession
Extra-judicial confession made by accused jointly is not admissible in evidence. Muhammad Amin v. Bashir Ahmad 1983 PCr.LJ 1574 rel. Rana Ijaz Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Khadim Hussain Bhatti for the State. , Sardar Ali alongwith others was reported against vide F.I.R. No.173, dated 3-11-1994 under section 302, P.P.C. registered with Police Station, Nadokey District Narowal on the allegation that he and his wife committed the murder of Shaukat Ali, their son-in-law.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.; his name has also not been mentioned in the statement of complainant under section 161, Cr.P.C. on 3-11-1994; no recovery has- been affected and that the only material against the petitioner brought on record is joint extra-judicial confession which according to the learned counsel is not admissible. He submits that the case of the petitioner, in these circumstances, is one of further inquiry.
3. Learned counsel for the State conversely opposed the petition. He submitted that on being found guilty, the petitioner alongwith others has been challaned and there is sufficient material collected by the Investigating Agency to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. He, however, conceded that extra judicial confession is joint.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police file. The D.S.P. was unable to point out any material available on the file except the joint extra-judicial confession to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. It is settled law that joint extra-judicial confession is not admissible. Reliance can safely be placed on the case of Muhammad Amin v. Bashir Ahmad 1983 PCr.LJ 1574. There is no direct evidence and the case of the prosecution prima facie rests on Wajtakkar evidence Furnished by Muhammad Bashir, Abdul Hafeez, Rana Abdullah and Abdul Wahid. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner falls under proviso (2) to section 497, Cr.P.C. Resultantly, the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his executing bail bond in the sum of Rs. one lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner/Duty Magistrate, Narowal. N.H.Q./S-441/L Bail allowed.