2004P3053 (PLP)
N/A
| Citation | 2004P3053 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | N/A |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004P3053 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004P3053 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004P3053 (PLP) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
'Contradictions', meaning and scope
'Contradictions' mean negation of version of prosecution case
Mere discrepancies in the details of facts would not amount to contradiction. (d) Criminal Trial
Not an inflexible principle that evidence of a related and interested witness must be corroborated by some independent evidence-- If statement of a witness inspired-confidence and no independent witness was available then the Court in the facts and circumstances of a particular case could rely on the testimony of an interested witness provided it was otherwise, free from doubt. Roshan and 4 others v. The State PLD 1976 8C 557 ref. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 164
Confession before Magistrate
Delay in recording confession
.Effect
Delay in recording confession by itself could not render confession nugatory if otherwise it was proved on record that same was made voluntarily
Delay for recording confession, per se, was no ground to discard same unless it was proved from circumstances that it was obtained by coercion, threat, pressure, etc. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
S. 35
When an offence was proved, it had to be met with maximum sentence provided for such offence
No yardstick was available to restrict or curb the discretion of Trial Court while passing sentence
Circumstances of each case would justify the severity or leniency in passing legal sentence. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Ss. 302/324/337-A(ii)/34
No overt act whatsoever had been ascribed to co-accused in the case
Co-accused had not taken any step which could indicate that he shared common intention with main accused
Mere presence of co-accused at the spot would not be sufficient to lead to an inference that he shared common intention with main accused
Presence of co-accused on the spot otherwise had become doubtful and benefit of same must go to co-accused
Consent and knowledge of co-accused with main accused being not one, applicability of S.34, P.P.C. against co-accused was totally illegal and unjustified
Impugned judgment of Trial Court to the extent of co accused was bereft of cogent and convincing reasons
Conviction and sentence recorded against co-accused by Trial Court, were set aside and he was acquitted of charge levelled against him and was released from jail. S. Zafar Abbas Zaidi for Appellant. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhry, D.A.-G. for the State. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for the Complainant. Date of hearing; 22nd April, 2004.