Inadmissible in evidence

Production of documents in the statement of counsel is considered as an invalid mode of tendering of documents and such documents are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon as valid evidence and cannot be taken into consideration.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused tried to snatch mobile phone from the deceased/grand maternal son of complainant and on his resistance, they opened straight fires upon the deceased, due to which he died

Record showed that the accused was already under arrest in a police encounter case when out of the blue with no evidence against him in the case he confessed to the murder which carried the death penalty

Said fact did not appeal to logic, reason or commonsense and was simply unbelievable

Significantly the police did not produce appellant before a Magistrate to record his confession despite producing him before the Magistrate for an identification parade

Alleged confession before the police by the appellant which the appellant claimed was the result of torture whilst in police custody was also inadmissible in evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Appellants confessed to the offence whilst in police custody however they were not produced before a Magistrate to record their confessions under S.164, Cr.P.C, despite being produced before a Magistrate for an identification parade

Thus, no reliance could be placed on the appellants' confessions allegedly made before the police

Such fact did not appeal to logic, reason or commonsense that the appellants would confess to such a serious crime as the present one which carried the death penalty whilst in police custody when there was no evidence against them in the case and they were being detained in an illegal arms case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the deceased by causing fire shot and dagger injuries and then poured acid on his dead body and then threw it in an open space

Investigating Officer interrogated both the accused persons, on which it was disclosed by appellant that he had caused fire shot injuries to the deceased with his revolver

Such fact was affirmed by appellant Mst. "AZ" by stating that she had also caused dagger injuries to the deceased

If it was believed that such a disclosure was made by the appellants before the said Investigating Officer even then it could hardly be used against them as evidence in terms of Art.39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Investigating Officer acknowledged during cross-examination that both recoveries (of alleged weapons of offence) were made from the same place and on the same date

Even otherwise, it was not the stance of the investigating officer that he conducted the recovery proceedings independently and separately for each appellant (accused)

Besides, the recovery memos were also silent about which appellant first led to the recovery or pointed out the place of recovery

As the police took both appellants together in the same vehicle for the recovery and recovered the weapons from the same place and at the same date and time, it was to be considered a joint recovery for all purposes, irrespective of the fact that the investigating officer prepared two separate recovery memos

Joint recovery was of no evidentiary value and is inadmissible in evidence

Furthermore, the record showed that the above-mentioned weapons, as per the report of the Provincial Forensic Science Laboratory, did not match the crime cartridges allegedly recovered from the scene of the occurrence, even though both weapons were found to be in mechanical operating condition with working safety features

As such, there coveries of the weapons of offence did not support and advance the case of the prosecution

Appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court and that of the Trial Court were set aside, and consequently, both the appellants, were acquitted of the charge.

There was neither any last seen evidence nor evidence of waj takkar available on the record against the appellants (accused persons)

Prosecution case was based on alleged confession of appellant "MY" before the police while in custody

There was also conflict in the statements of witnesses of extra judicial confession of "MY" regarding the date of making of said confession

Even otherwise confession of an accused before the police while in custody is inadmissible in evidence

Police did not make any effort to produce "MY" before the concerned Magistrate for recording of his judicial confession in accordance with the law

Furthermore complainant was real brother of deceased but he did not enter appearance in the witness box

According to the prosecution, he shifted to some unknown place, therefore, non-bailable warrants of his arrest to compel him to appear before the Trial Court, could not be executed

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.

Confession of accused before the police was inadmissible in evidence and the accused was not taken before a Judicial Magistrate to have his confession recorded

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.

Such document cannot be seen or looked into by court, even if it is exhibited without any objection.