Power to examine accused

2019 PLD 1 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 342Power to examine accusedScope

Section 342, Cr.P.C., could be classified into two parts: First part was discretionary in nature, vesting jurisdiction in the court to put questions to accused at any stage of inquiry or trial, without previous warning, but later part of said provision, cast duty upon the court to put incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution during the course of trial "for the purpose of enabling accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him"

Purpose and object of confronting accused with incriminating evidence, simultaneously suggesting that, if evidence suggesting his involvement in the commission of crime, was not put to him, it could not be used as evidence against him

Failure to confront would make it impossible for accused to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence and same based on the principle of "audi alteram partem".

2018 MLD 1661 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 342Power to examine accused

If any piece of evidence brought by the prosecution on record was not put to accused at the time of recording statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., the same could not be considered against him

Trial Court while recording statement of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., had not put the relevant questions regarding the reports of Chemical Examiner and that of Tapedar

Statement of accused was recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., by the Trial Court in a stereotype manner

Relevant and important questions of incriminating pieces of evidence had not been put to accused for their explanation/reply

Trial Court had used such piece of evidence for convicting the accused, which was not legal.

2017 PCrLJ 79 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 342Power to examine accusedPrinciples

Accused cannot be convicted after rejection of the prosecution evidence merely on the basis of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

2017 YLR 2401 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 342Power to examine accusedAvailable material was not put to accused during trial

In the present case, incriminating material was not put to accused during the course of trial at the time of recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Effect

If any incriminating piece of evidence like report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., or FIR, recovery memos, statement of prosecution witnesses and confessional statement if any were not put to accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. for his explanation, then the same could not be used against him for his conviction.

2016 PCrLJ 1640 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 342Power to examine accusedPrinciple

Any piece of evidence on which the prosecution relies, if not put to an accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. would be of no help for the prosecution, as the same has no evidentiary value.

2016 YLR 2755 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 9(c)Possession, import or export, trafficking or financing of trafficking of narcotic drugsAppreciation of evidencePower to examine accused

Prosecution had failed to establish connection of the case property with the parcels of samples deposited with the office of the Forensic Science Agency

Samples of the recovered narcotics had been handed over to the prosecution witness after five days of the recovery for their transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner

Samples had not been deposited at the Chemical Examiner Officer on the same day

Accused had been prejudiced, as questions put to the accused in his examination under S. 342, Cr.P.C did not focus on the evidence available on the record and the Narcotics Analysis Report had not been brought to his notice

Burden always remained on the prosecution to prove affirmatively right from the arrest of accused, seizer of the recovered contraband till it reached the office of Narcotics Analyst/Chemical Examiner

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ 662 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 11-W & Fourth Sched.

Printing, publishing or disseminating any material to incite hatred or giving projection to any person convicted for a terrorist act or any proscribed organization or organization placed under observation for any concerned in terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Power to examine accused

Private witnesses regarding arrest and recovery not produced during investigation/trial

Co-accused released on same set of evidence

Source of prohibited material/pamphlet not found

No previous criminal record available on file

Accused, along with others, was alleged to have distributed pamphlets containing material of religious hatred

Trial Court convicted the accused under S. 11-W of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for five years along with payment of fine; and acquitted the co-accused giving him the benefit of doubt

Admittedly any witness from the public, who had been delivered the pamphlet allegedly held by the accused persons, had neither been associated with the investigation nor produced before the Trial Court, which was required to prove the alleged offence of disseminating, inciting religious, sectarian or ethnic hatred, punishable under S. 11-W of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

No pamphlet from any person delivered by the accused persons could be recovered during the investigation

Prosecution witness/Investigating Officer had admitted that during investigation no proof of involvement of the accused with any proscribed organization had been found and his name was not mentioned in the Fourth Sched. of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

No source of publication of the allegedly recovered pamphlets, the source from where the same had been obtained, could be dug out during the investigation and physical custody of the accused and acquitted co-accused

Culpability of the accused remained unwarranted, as the necessary ingredients to constitute mentioned offence were missing

Trial Court, disbelieving the same evidence against the co-accused, had acquitted him of the same charge and without any strong plausible and independent corroboration to the evidence furnished by prosecution witnesses had convicted accused, which could not be upheld

Prosecution had not filed appeal against acquittal of the co-accused

No previous criminal record of such like case had been put to the accused during his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. nor any such record had been got proved in evidence by the prosecution

Prosecution had failed to prove the case against the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal was, therefore, allowed accordingly.

2016 MLD 261 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 342Power to examine accusedStatement of accused, appreciation of

Where prosecution version is disbelieved, statement of accused is to be considered as a whole and not in piecemeal.

2013 YLR 771 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 342Evidence likely to contribute towards conviction of accusedInter-pretation of S.342, Cr.P.C.Power to examine accusedScope

Section 342(1), Cr.P.C. had two parts; the first part gave discretion to the court whereas the second part was mandatory

Under the first part of said section court might put such questions to the accused which might be deemed appropriate in arriving at a just conclusion, whereas, under second part examination of accused was a must because purpose was to point out evidence against him and ask for an explanation

Use of word "shall" in second part of S.342(1), Cr.P.C. signified that examination of accused was compulsory and not optional.