Qanun-e-Shahadat, evidence procured through modern devices

2019 P Cr. L J 57

Criminal Law

Crime detected through CCTV footage and accused was arrested, who disclosed the fact of burying the dead body of the deceased in a cave; which was later on recovered on the pointation of accused in the presence 4/10/2019 marginal witness—Post-mortem on the dead body was conducted on the same day—Injuries on the person of the deceased, were sufficient to cause death and the time which elapsed between death and postmortem was more than 24 hours, which also coincided with the time of disappearance of the deceased child—Both the prosecution witnesses remained un-shattered despite lengthy and exhaustive cross-examination– -After the amendment knocked in Art.164, Qanun-e-Shahadat, evidence procured through modern devices, was admissible in evidence—Last seen evidence was available in the shape of CCTV footage and it had also come on record that deceased was never seen alive till his dead body was recovered on the pointation of accused—Statement of prosecution witness, who was uncle of deceased, was also in line with the statement of other prosecution witness and both the statements were consistent on all material particulars—Weapon of offence (knife) recovered on the pointation of accused was sent to Chemical Examiner and the report was positive—One blood-stained stone was also recovered from the place of occurrence on the pointation of accused—Chemical Examiner also confirmed that the blood-stains present on the last worn clothes of the deceased and the one present on the stone, were of the same group—Site plan prepared by Investigating Officer and exhibited in court, was admissible in evidence—Case of accused, was not a case of kidnapping or abduction as on offer to purchase some fire crackers, the deceased himself willingly accompanied accused persons; it could not be said that deceased was either kidnapped or abducted as per mandate of S. 364-A, P.P.C.—Police report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C., showed the motive of murder was that prior to the incident, accused were committing sodomy with the deceased—Motive of murder and such statement had not been challenged either way—Conviction under S.377, P.P.C., was valid and maintained—Conviction of accused under S.302, P.P.C., read with Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was maintained and murder reference was answered in affirmative. See Criminal Law.


Post excerpts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *