Examination of Accused

Every piece of incriminating evidence must be specifically put to the accused during his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., failing which such evidence cannot be used against him.

As per retracted judicial confession of petitioner, he committed the murder of deceased, due to the motive that about one year prior to the occurrence he received a phone call from co-accused (since Proclaimed Offender) who wanted to marry with him and informed the said petitioner that she was already engaged with deceased, therefore, the said petitioner should first commit the murder of deceased and then they could marry with each other, whereupon, the petitioner along with other petitioner, committed the murder of deceased, while taking him out of the village on the pretext of tracing out some article

In his judicial confession, petitioner further stated that after committing the murder of deceased, they (accused) dug a grave and put the dead body of deceased in the said grave and filled the grave of the deceased with earth

Judicial confession of other petitioner was also on the same lines

Insofar as the motive disclosed in the retracted judicial confessions of the petitioners was concerned, notable that no motive whatsoever was mentioned in the FIR, which was lodged after 11 days of the occurrence

Likewise, complainant, who was paternal uncle of deceased, and witness who was real brother of the deceased, had not uttered a single word in their statements before the Court that deceased was ever engaged with co-accused (since PO) or their marriage was going to be solemnized in the near future

Rather complainant and witness conceded during their cross-examinations that they had no previous enmity with the accused/petitioners

No other witness was produced to prove the alleged motive that deceased was ever engaged with the co-accused (since PO) or his marriage with the said co-accused was planned in the near future

No motive was put to the petitioners in their statements recorded under Section 342,Cr.P.C

No telephone numbers, SIM numbers, Call Data Record or transcript of the conversation of the accused with each other had been brought on the record

Keeping in view the said facts, there was no independent corroboration of retracted judicial confession of the petitioners with the motive part of the prosecution case

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

Appeals were allowed accordingly.

If a question is not put to an accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., for explanation then the same cannot be relied upon in order to convict the accused.

If any evidence is not put to accused and he has no chance to explain the same, it cannot be used to convict the accused and must be discarded.

If any incriminating piece of evidence is not put to an accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., for his explanation then the same cannot be used against him for his conviction.

Accused had taken the plea of alibi during his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C, by stating that he had proceeded to Kashmir for earning his livelihood and when he returned to his house one day prior to his arrest after two months and twenty days, he found his wives missing with further assertions that he was trying to find traces of his missing wives but the complainant arrested him through police with mala fide, and that it was the complainant himself who was involved in the murders of his wives

Said plea of the accused was nowhere suggested to the witnesses nor the same fit in the attending circumstances of the case

Admittedly the occurrence had taken place in 2011 and long before the said year the world had turned into a global village because of effective communication resources through modern technology in shape of cellular phones

Thus, it did not appeal to a prudent mind that the accused during his alleged stay in Kashmir never contacted his wives especially when there was no other male member in his house to protect them and help them in bringing ration and other necessary things of daily use

Moreso, it could not be expected from an ordinary man to presume that his wives were living safe and sound without confronting any disease or accident

Thus, the plea raised by the accused could not be accepted in the mentioned circumstances rather he had made a lame endeavor to save his skin by raising the plea of alibi

In such situation when the plea raised by the accused could not be accepted, being absurd and irrational, he was bound to explain that what had happened to his wives and how their dead bodies were buried inside a room of his house

Admittedly, wives of the accused had met unnatural deaths through firing as perexhumation report

Accused had neither announced their funeral prayers according to custom of the area nor made any report to police nor there was any evidence to show that he had taken his wives in injured condition to hospital for saving their lives

Conduct of the accusedwas relevant under Art. 122 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, according to which if a particular fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him

Thus, in light of his failure to offer explanation regarding the said unnatural happening inside his house, it could be concluded that the accused had killed his wives and thereafter secretly buried them in a room of his house to conceal his crime

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

If an accused, facing trial is not confronted with incriminating circumstances, no conviction can be awarded on the basis thereof.

Each and every material piece of evidence brought on record by the prosecution against an accused must be put to him at the time of recording of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., so as to provide him an opportunity to explain his position in that regard

Denial of such opportunity to the accused defeated the ends of justice

Failure to comply with this mandatory requirement vitiates a trial.

Section 342, Cr.P.C., mandates that all incriminating evidence is to be put to the accused in his statement under said section and evidence which has not been confronted to the accused, conviction cannot be based on such evidence and such evidence has to be rejected or accepted in toto

If any incriminating piece of evidence is not put to the accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., for his explanation, the same cannot be used against him for his conviction.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons made firing upon the complainant party, due to which nephew of the complainant died whereas his brother became injured

Statement of the accused recorded under S.342 of the Code depicted that the incriminating material i.e. the memo. of identification parade, in which the accused was shown to have been picked up by complainant and wintnesses, the medical evidence including postmortem report and MLCs revealing unnatural death of deceased and injuries to injured person caused by firearm, inquest report, danistnama, memos. of inspection of dead body, place of incident, recovery of four empty shells of .30 bore pistol and blood stained earth etc. from the place of incident, blood stained clothes of the deceased, arrest of the accused persons, injuries to injured, Forensic Science Laboratory Report relating to the blood stained earth and clothes of the deceased etc. were not put to the accused to extract his explanation thereon during his examination under S.342 of the Code

Accused was to be confronted with each and every piece of evidence and circumstance, with specific and definite details thereof, so as to afford him all possible opportunities to explain the charge and the circumstances of the case

Where any important and material piece of evidence is not put to the accused and an opportunity is not given to him to explain that, such evidence cannot be used for conviction of the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

If a piece of evidence or a circumstance is not put to accused persons at the time of recording their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C., the same could not be considered against them.

Every incriminating piece of evidence must be put to the accused charged, failing which the same will lose its evidentiary value.

Accused was charged for committing rape upon complainant and also taking away Rs. 2500/- from the box lying in the room of the complainant

Trial Court recorded the statement of accused as if he was potent

Said statement of the accused was recorded on 07.09.2013 but that fact also found no mention in the interim order of the said date

Said statement of the accused could not be equated with a statement which was recorded under S. 342, or 340(2), Cr.P.C.

Statement of the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., was recorded in question and answer form and a certificate was to be furnished by the Trial Court at the foot of the statement in terms of S.364, Cr.P.C., whereas, the statement under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., was always on oath and the accused could be cross-examined by the other side

Statement of the accused could be recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., more than once in appropriate cases, if needed, but of course, after observing formalities as prescribed by law

Statement was also read over to the accused and then he admitted the contents of the statement and then put his thumb impression or signed the same as token of its correctness

Procedure which was not prescribed by law was adopted by the Trial Court by recording statement of the accused and then, neither the Medical Officer was summoned nor the said Medico-Legal Report was put to the accused in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had committed the abuse of the process of Court by not questioning the accused in respect of the incriminating circumstance i.e. Medico-Legal Report regarding his potency, although the document was available on the record

When incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused in examination under S. 342, Cr.P.C., then the evidence giving rise to the circumstance could not be utilized by the Court.

Examination of accused is based on the principles ?of maxim: "Audi Alteram Partem" that means 'no one should be condemned unheard'

Such circumstances to be put to accused are also ?called 'incriminate pieces of evidence'

Word ?incriminating means "a material that has harmful ?effect"

Deviation from such duty shall render ?the conviction invalid. [Para. 23 of the judgment]

?Principles governing examination of accused ?under S. 342, Cr.P.C. detailed.

?Examination of an accused is not mere formality ?by the Court but a mandate to enable him to ?explain any circumstances appearing against him ?in evidence, therefore, every piece of evidence ?which can be used against him for the purpose of ?conviction is required to be put to him. [Para. 23 of the judgment]

Statement of accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., it transpired that complainant and eye-witnesses deposed that deceased sustained fire arm injuries, post mortem examination was conducted, in which injuries by means of fire arm were certified and post mortem was produced before the Trial Court, but question regarding that piece of evidence was not put to accused for his explanation

Revolver recovered on the pointation of the accused was sent to the Ballistic Expert and report was positive, it was laid in the R & Ps, but it was not produced in evidence at trial, but said incriminating piece of evidence was not put to accused for his explanation in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had relied upon the said pieces of evidence for recording conviction against the accused

Held, Trial Court had taken the matter lightly and awarded death sentence to the accused without putting all the incriminating pieces of evidence at the time of recording of statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Some other incriminating pieces of evidence with regard to the medical evidence, which were also not put to the accused at the time of recording 342 Cr.P.C. statement for his explanation

Accused, therefore, was prejudiced in his trial, therefore, a miscarriage of justice had occurred in the case

Procedure adopted by Trial Court was an illegal procedure that could not be cured under section 537, Cr.P.C., thus, it had vitiated the trial

Impugned judgment was liable to be set aside

Appeal was allowed by setting aside impugned judgment and case was remanded to the trial court for re-trial after recording statement of the accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., after putting all incriminating pieces of evidence to the accused.

All incriminating pieces of evidence available on record are required to be put to the accused as required under S.342, Cr.P.C., for the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him

If any piece of evidence was not put to the accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., then the same could not be used against him for his conviction.

Record showed that in the statement of accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C, all the incriminating pieces of evidence were not put to the accused for his explanation

Allegedly, accused had made confession during interrogation before the Judicial Magistrate but question regarding such piece of evidence was not put to him

Question regarding motive was also not put to the accused

Questions/incriminating pieces of evidence regarding blood stained clothes and reports of the Chemical Examiners were also not put to the accused

Trial court was responsible to ensure that truth was discovered

Procedure adopted by the trial court was reflective of miscarriage of justice

Offence was punishable for death or imprisonment for life and accused had been awarded death penalty without providing him opportunity with regard to material questions to be put to him in statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C

Impugned judgment, in circumstances, was set-aside and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for its decision afresh with the direction that the accused be re-examined under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and he be confronted with all the incriminating circumstances/evidence available on record.

Each and every material piece of evidence being relied upon by the prosecution against an accused person must be put to him at the time of recording of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., so as to provide him an opportunity to explain his position in that regard

Denial of such opportunity to the accused person would defeat the ends of justice

Failure to comply with the mandatory requirement vitiated the trial.

Accused was charged that he along with the co-accused forcibly dragged the daughter of complainant in the car and under the show of weapons took her to an unknown place and detained her in a room, and all the accused forcibly committed rape with her

In his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., the accused had defended himself by stating that the prosecutrix had entered into marital bond with one "M" on her own free-will and accord

Accused, in that respect, had placed copies of certain documents like affidavit of free-will duly signed and having thumb impression of prosecutrix which was sworn before a Justice of Peace, an application filed by the said "M" of the nature of habeas corpus, and statement of the prosecutrix recorded before that court in the aforementioned application

In the application of habeas corpus, the claimant as husband of the prosecutrix levelled allegations that his wife (prosecutrix) was taken away by some unknown persons after beating him while he was kept hostage from five days and released

In the said application, it was alleged that those unknown persons while releasing him had threatened him for not to pursue his wife and they informed him that his wife had been handed over to her father

Not only the proper address of "M" was available in the application of habeas corpus but a copy of CNIC was also annexed with the said application

Such non-associating of the said "M" in the investigation, itself opened the venue of doubt regarding the prosecution case

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not establish the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

No question had been put to the accused during course of his examination under S. 342 Cr.P.C., to have his explanation on point of recovery of alleged crime weapon from him and report of Forensic Expert

Accused could hardly be connected with such recovery

Prosecution had not been able to prove the involvement of the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Piece of evidence or a circumstance not put to an accused at the time of recording of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. could not be considered against the accused person facing the trial.

Record showed that the statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., was not recorded in accordance with law and all the incriminating pieces of evidence were not put to him

Even question was not put to the accused with regard to medical evidence, recovery of articles from the place of incident as well as chemical/Forensic Science Laboratories Reports

Accused was entitled to benefit of doubt on that score and the lacunas in the prosecution case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Piece of evidence or a circumstance not put to accused person at the time of recording of his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., could not be considered against him.

Purpose of enactment of S. 342, Cr.P.C, was to safeguard the interest of accused, enable him to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence

Purpose of the provision was to enable the court to decide the question of guilt of accused

Object of referred section was that the attention of accused should be drawn to the evidence on which the prosecution claimed that the case was made out against the accused

All the incriminating pieces of evidence available on record in examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of witnesses, were required to be put on accused, while recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Record transpired that after closure of prosecution witnesses, the accused were examined under Ss. 342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C. and defence witnesses produced by them were also examined

Complainant, thereafter filed an application under S.540, Cr.P.C. for calling inquiry report, which was allowed and the court witness produced the inquiry report

Complainant filed another application for amendment in the statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. of accused, which was rejected

Validity

Record revealed that the complainant, after recording of the statements of accused under Ss. 342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C and defence witnesses, filed an application under S.540, Cr.P.C, for calling inquiry report, which was allowed

Statement of the representative of the concerned Department was recorded, who produced inquiry report

Court had power under S.540, Cr.P.C to summon material witnesses at any stage of proceeding, examine any person or recall or re-examine any person already examined

Trial Court had examined Section Officer, PHE Department, who produced the inquiry report

Said witness appeared and recorded his statement as witness

Order of accepting the application under S.540, Cr.P.C, for producing the inquiry report by the representative of PHE Department had not been challenged

Purpose of examining of accused was to enable him/them to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him

On allowing the application under S.540, Cr.P.C, the witness was examined, who produced certain documents

Under S. 342, Cr.P.C, the accused was allowed to explain his position in regard of evidence produced after recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Plain reading of S.342, Cr.P.C, showed no restriction to record the statement of accused after producing defence evidence

Even after closing the prosecution and defence side, the accused had a right to explain his position

Petition was allowed by setting aside impugned order and Trial Court was directed to re-examine the accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., by making question in respect of inquiry report.

Accused while recording his statement under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. explained that on the day of occurrence deceased and others were busy in demolishing the warkha

Accused requested them to stop demolishing until the matter was resolved, which annoyed them and they started beating him with their weapons etc., they broke his spectacles and torn his clothes

Meanwhile, one of the companion, made a fire which hit the deceased who fell on the ground

Accused further stated that the co-villagers attracted to the spot and rescued him from the hands of the accused and to save his life

Accused produced a witness, who supported his version

Investigating Officer while preparing card of arrest of accused did not mention the injuries on his person and the condition of his clothes

Accused was examined by the Medical Officer, who found multiple blunt injuries on his body with torn/crushed clothes, but the conduct of Investigating Officer showed mala fide on his part

Circumstances suggested that plea of accused was nearer to the truth, however disagreed with his stance that it was the fire shot of one of the companions of deceased which went effective

Court felt no hesitation to hold that it was from the fire shot of the accused that the deceased got hit and died, but the injuries on person of the accused and his torn clothes belied what the SHO stated that he arrested accused with a Kalashnikov

Facts and circumstances of the case showed that incident occurred when the parties were engaged in a free fight, which resulted into the death of the deceased and injuries on person of the accused, however, deceased was never the target

Both the sides twisted the facts to their benefit, hence, in such eventuality the quantum of sentence called for interference, resultantly, appeal was partially allowed by altering the conviction awarded to the accused under S.302(b), P.P.C., to one under S.302(c), P.P.C. and he was sentenced to ten years.

According to the legislative mandate of S. 342(1), Cr.P.C., the accused was incumbently required to be confronted with the circumstances, which later could be used for awarding him guilty verdict

Section 342(1), Cr.P.C. comprising of two parts, out of which the earlier is a discretionary, whereas the latter was mandatory

According to first part, the court might be at any stage of inquiry or trial put questions to accused regarding the incriminating circumstance but the second part of foregoing provision made it obligatory for the court to confront the accused with such evidence

Legislative wisdom ensuing from 342(1), Cr.P.C., rests in the idea that at the fag end of trial accused must be apprised about the incriminating evidence having come on record during prosecution evidence so as to provide him a fair opportunity to put forth explanation and to lead some defense evidence, if need be

If the accused was not provided an opportunity to offer explanation for the part of incriminating evidence led by the prosecution, the very purpose of 342, Cr.P.C. would be rendered nothing but nullity.

Conviction could only be based upon the evidence which was put to the accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., for obtaining his explanation

If such evidence was not put to the accused in such statement then it cannot be used against him.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Examination of accused

Scope

Prosecution case was that the accused on seeing the police party made firing upon them, due to which Police Constable was hit and died

Record showed that the trial court had recorded the statements of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C., in a very casual manner and committed several illegalities, which were not curable under the law

Any piece of evidence produced by the prosecution against an accused, if not put to accused while examining him/her under S. 342, Cr.P.C., could not be used against that accused

Rationale beyond was that the accused must know and respond to the evidence brought against her/him by the prosecution

Appeal, in circumstances, was allowed and matter was remanded by setting aside the convictions and sentences with the direction to record the statements of witnesses in presence of all the accused and recording the statements of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. afresh by putting to them all pieces of prosecution evidence produced during trial.

Piece of evidence produced by the prosecution against an accused, if not put to accused while examining him/her under S. 342, Cr.P.C. could not be used against the said accused

Rationale beyond was that the accused must know and respond to the evidence brought against him/her by the prosecution

Accused must have firsthand knowledge of all the aspects of the prosecution case being brought against him/her.

Accused were said to have committed forcible rape with daughter of complainant in a mosque where she used to go for Quranic education

Subsequently, the victim died

Record showed that main piece of evidence, as deposed by mother of deceased and relied upon by the Trial Court for conviction had not been put to accused while examining them under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court had recorded the statements of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. in a very casual manner and committed illegalities, which were not curable under the law

Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to record the statements of all the accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. afresh by putting all incriminating pieces of prosecution evidence so brought against them.

Statements of the accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., revealed that the medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not put to accused at the time of recording their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C., enabling them to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them, therefore, such evidence could not be considered against them

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

All the incriminating pieces of evidence brought on record by the prosecution ought to be put to the accused at the time of recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., for his explanation/reply.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, rash and negligent act, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Examination of accused

Scope

Accused were charged that they, while armed with deadly weapons, in furtherance of their common object made unlawful assembly, committed offence of rioting, made direct fire upon complainant party with intention to commit their qatl-i-amd, due to which son of complainant was hit and died while daughter of complainant was kidnapped

Record showed that the material piece of evidence being relied upon by the prosecution against the accused was not put to them at the time of recording their statements under S.342, Cr.P.C.

No doubt, joint questions with regard to documentary evidence in shape of memo, FIR, memo of arrest and recovery and other material so also evidence of Medical Officer, post-mortem report and recovery were put to the accused but the said questions did not specify as to the date of arrest and recovery from the accused on their pointation, empties from the spot coupled with report of Forensic Science Laboratory authorities that such weapons were in working condition etc. and the manner thereof

Said omissions on the part of the Trial Court were not mere irregularities curable under S.537, Cr.P.C, but the same were downright illegalities, which had vitiated the conviction and sentence of accused recorded by the Trial Court

Trial Court had rendered judgment in violation of statutory provisions of S.367, Cr.P.C, as such it was not sustainable

Appeal was allowed by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court

Case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to record the statements of accused under S.342, Cr.P.C., afresh by putting them all pieces of prosecution evidence, enabling them to know and respond to the same and shall decide the case after hearing the parties.

Mere verbal assertion made by an accused in his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. without proving same either by examining himself on oath as provided under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. or producing any witness in support of his defence plea, could not be accepted.

Keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances, act of terrorism, possessing illicit weapon

Appreciation of evidence

Examination of accused

Scope

Prosecution case was that five Kalashnikovs with magazines, one pistol with magazine, six air craft gun shells were recovered from accused

Every incriminating piece of evidence must be put to the accused while recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.

In the present case, no question with regard to weapons allegedly recovered from the possession of accused whether the same were licensed or unlicensed and also whether the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and its report had been asked from the accused while recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Statement of accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., did not bear the certificate of the trial judge in his own hand which was mandatory requirement under S.364, Cr.P.C., thus the same was illegality

Said defect was not curable under S.537, Cr.P.C.

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Piece of evidence or a circumstance not put to accused person at the time of recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., could not be considered against him.

Record showed that the evidence of Medical Officer including the post-mortem and the evidence of the Investigating Officer was not put to the accused persons in their statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C., to enable them to explain, however, the same was used by the Trial Court for awarding them the conviction, which could not be considered against them

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Evidence in respect of the recovery of empty, bloodstained earth from the place of vardat, recovery of pistol from the accused and the Forensic Science Laboratory Report so also Chemical Examiner's report including the dying declaration of the deceased recorded by the Investigating Officer were not put to the accused while recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., enabling him to explain the circumstances

Said material could not be used against him

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

All the incriminating piece of evidence available on record in shape of examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of witnesses were required to be put to the accused, if the same were against him, while recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

If any piece of evidence or a circumstance was not put to accused at the time of recording his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., same could not be considered against him.

Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abettor present when offence is committed, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Examination of accused

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant

Statement of the accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., revealed that the recovery of empties of Kalashnikovs, blood-stained earth from the place of vardat, recovery of bloodstained clothes so also the medical evidence in shape of post-mortem were not put to him enabling him to explain about the same

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Until and unless an incriminating material is confronted and put to the accused the same could not be used against him/her.

Record showed that in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., by pleading his innocence, the accused stated that complainant SHO was inimical to his relative ASI and foisted Desi Sharab upon him

Accused had not been confronted to the Chemical Examiner's Report, therefore, the chemical report was out of consideration

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused persons assailed order passed by Sessions Judge whereby case was remanded to the Magistrate for decision afresh after framing of proper charge and recording statements under S. 342, Cr.P.C.

Charge was framed in violation of S. 233, Cr.P.C. and therefore could not be given legal sanctity

Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded by Reader of the Court and that too without a memorandum in terms of S. 356, Cr.P.C.

Statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. of one of the accused persons was recorded through the counsel of complainant party despite availability of accused before the Trial Court

Trial could not be termed to have been acted as per the procedure and law

Proper course in such like situation was to direct for de novo trial

Revision petition was accepted and the Trial Court was directed to hold de novo trial.

Statement of an accused person recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. was to be accepted or rejected in its entirety.

Legally, it was not possible to accept the inculpatory part of the statement of the accused person and reject the exculpatory part of the same statement.

Record showed that the prosecution evidence was not worthy of reliance and the same had rightly been disbelieved by the Trial Court

Accused had been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court on the basis of his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., wherein, he stated that he had seen his deceased wife with his deceased paramour while committing zina with each other whereupon he committed their murder under sudden and grave provocation

Accused therefore had rightly been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under S.302(c), P.P.C., instead of the charge under S. 302(b), P.P.C.

Circumstances established that the prosecution evidence was not worthy of reliance

Quantum of sentence under S.302(c), P.P.C., was altered from imprisonment for life on two counts to fourteen years

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Statement of an accused was to be accepted or rejected as a whole and it was not legally permissible to accept incriminating part of the statement of an accused and disbelieve the exculpatory part of the said statement.