Summary: Banking/Recovery Suits

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay ofthree hours and five minutes in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused were charged forcommitting murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---Motive alleged in the reportwas that prior to the incident the accused had threatened the deceased for dire consequencesand had also offended the complainant's shop---Record divulged that the occurrence hadbeen reported by the complainant after three hours of its happening---Explanation, in thatregard came on record that after the occurrence he took his brother to the hospital in injuredcondition---Complainant further stated during cross-examination that twenty-five or thirtyminutes were spent in taking the deceased to the hospital from the place of occurrencebecause no vehicle was available at the time of occurrence---Complainant further statedduring cross-examination that after going to the hospital, he reached the police station---Witness stated during cross-examination that the report was prepared through the petitionwriter, which took 10/15 minutes---Delay in lodging the FIR had plausibly been explained bythe prosecution, as such, the FIR was lodged promptly wherein the complainant directlycharged the accused persons with a specific role of firing upon the deceased---Appeal wasdismissed accordingly. [Para. 5 of the judgment](b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocularaccount---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of thecomplainant by firing---Being a broad daylight occurrence and complainant already knew theaccused, diminished the possibility of mistaken identity---Both the complainant and eyewitness had furnished ocular account of the incident---Complainant while appearing beforethe court reiterated the same episode/version of the occurrence as stated forth by him in hisinitial report/FIR and charged the accused persons for the murder of the deceased---Eyewitness had also corroborated the testimony of complainant and charged the accused withfiring upon the deceased and that the co-accused was also armed with a pistol for thecommission of the offence---Un-shattered statement regarding his presence, shifting of the dead body of the deceased to the hospital, lodging of the FIR by the complainant on hisreport established his presence at the spot---Eye-witness was neither relative of the deceasednor inimical towards the accused---Both the eye-witnesses had been subjected to lengthycross-examination by the prosecution but nothing beneficial could be extracted from them---Said witnesses remained stuck with their stance and corroborated each other on materialevents of the incident, date, time and place of occurrence and firing made by the accused atthe deceased---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.(c) Criminal trial-------Evidence---Discrepancies in---Scope---If the discrepancies were shattering the prosecutionstory on salient features then it had substance to intervene on the subject otherwise it had noimpact on the veracity of the prosecution story.Muhammad Iqbal v. The State PLD 2001 SC 222 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Vicariousliability---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of thecomplainant by firing---Record showed that the eye-witness did not attribute the role offiring to the co-accused, however, he stated that the co-accused was armed with T.T pistoland told them not to resist or they would be killed---Co-accused, however, was armed withdeadly weapon, i.e. firearms, which depicted common intentions and prior concert of mindbeing a facilitator and abettor of the accused and he remained present at the place ofoccurrence till the task, i.e. murder of the deceased was accomplished---Said role of coaccused could not be confined to that of facilitator---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.Zaigham-ur-Rehman v. The State PLD 2007 SC 93 rel.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Justification for the presence of witnesses at the spot---Scope---Accused were charged forcommitting murder of the brother of the complainant by firing---In the present case, thepresence of the complainant and eye-witness at the time and place of occurrence could not bedoubted by any stretch of imagination---Complainant was the brother of the deceased, whowas working with his brother and it was also established on record that eye-witness waslabour with the deceased at the time of occurrence---Both the said witnesses had givenspecific reasons for their presence at the place of occurrence and they witnessed the crimebeing committed by the accused persons---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.(f) Criminal trial-------Witness--- Interested and related witness---Reliance--- Scope--- Term "interested"---Connotation---Testimony of the witness which was trustworthy and inspiring confidence could not be discarded on the ground of his/her close relationship with the deceased---Closerelative, if proved to be the natural witness of the occurrence, could not be termed as aninterested witness---Term "interested" postulated that the person concerned must have somedirect interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other eitherbecause of animosity or for some other reason---Mere relationship of witness with thedeceased would not detract from his/her veracity, as he had absolutely no motive of his ownto involve the accused falsely by letting off the real culprits.Saeed Akhtar and others v. The State 2000 SCMR 383; Amal Sherin and another v.The State through A.G. PLD 2004 SC 371 and Hasil Khan v. The State 2012 SCMR 1936rel.(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Medicalevidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of thecomplainant by firing---Medical evidence corroborated the ocular account furnished by theprosecution--- Prosecution produced Medical Officer, who examined the dead body of thedeceased and observed multiple firearm injuries (as many as three in number, i.e. threeentrance wounds and three exit wounds) on the chest of the deceased---Cause of death wasshown excessive bleeding and damage to vital organs i.e. internal chest cavity and theweapon used was a firearm---Medical evidence furnished by the prosecution was in line withthe ocular account furnished by the prosecution---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recoveryof weapon and crime empties---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of thebrother of the complainant by firing---Record showed that the Investigating Officer took sixbullet empties of T.T pistol from the place of occurrence into possession through recoverymemo and prepared parcel in the presence of witness on the day of the occurrence---On thesame night, the accused was apprehended and from his personal search one T.T pistol alongwith four live cartridges were recovered which were taken into possession through recoverymemo in the presence of witness and prepared another parcel---Investigating Officer sent theparcel of six crime empties of T.T. pistol along with parcel of the T.T. pistol which wasrecovered from the accused to Firearms Expert---After analysis of the same, the InvestigatingOfficer obtained positive report from Firearms Expert---Appeal against conviction wasdismissed accordingly. [Para. 12 of the judgment](i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Motivewas proved---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of thecomplainant by firing---Motive was specifically taken in the FIR---Prior to the incident, theaccused extended threats to the complainant party and also offended their shop---Complainant, when appeared before the court, further clarified the motive that prior to the occurrence the accused also threatened them and before that the accused also offended theirshop and in that regard, he also filed an application before the police against the accused---Said motive was further confirmed by the defence while cross-examining complainant whenput a suggestion that "it was correct that before the said occurrence FIR was lodged againstthe accused and in the said case, the accused was acquitted from the charge"---Circumstancessuggested that the prosecution had proved the motive---Appeal against conviction wasdismissed accordingly.Khadija Saddiqui and another v. Shah Hussain and another PLD 2019 SC 261 rel.(j) Appeal against acquittal-------Interference---Scope---Acquittal carried with it a double presumption of innocence---Acquittal order could be reversed only when found blatantly perverse, resting upon fringes ofimpossibility and resulting in miscarriage of justice---Same could not be set aside merely onthe possibility of a contra view.Meraj Muhammad Marghzani for Appellant (in Criminal Jail Appeals Nos. (s) 14 and15 of 2019).

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Last seenevidence---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of theson of the complainant---Record transpired that no one came forward to furnish ocularaccount to that incident, thus, it was an unseen occurrence---Last seen evidence had beenfurnished by one witness, who stated that accused and two other persons took the deceasedon a motorcycle and corps of the deceased was found from the water tank---Said storynarrated by the witness had neither been corroborated from the FIR as well as disclosure ofthe accused before the police nor prosecution produced any other corroborating evidence inthat behalf---Version of said witness established his status as a witness of last seen, whichwas an afterthought and seemed concocted and fabricated one---Had said witness seen theaccused on the very first day of missing of deceased he would have definitely disclosedbefore the police regarding missing of the deceased---Said witness would have also inquiredfrom the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased, but he did not lodge the report onthe first day rather his statement was recorded by the police after three days from missing ofthe deceased, despite the fact that said witness was a nephew of the complainant, thus, saidbelated story of witness regarding last seen of the deceased in the company of the accusedwas unbelievable and not trustworthy---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.(b) Criminal trial-------Circumstantial evidence---Scope---If the case was based on circumstantial evidence theprosecution must ensure that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt was soughtto be drawn must be cogently and firmly established---Circumstances must unerringly pointtowards the guilt of the accused and when taken cumulatively should form a chain socomplete, that it must demonstrate in all probabilities that the crime was committee by theaccused.Sheikh Muhammad Amjad v. State PLD 2003 SC 704 rel.(c) Criminal trial-------Last seen evidence---Scope---Admittedly, the last seen evidence was the weakest type ofevidence unless corroborated by other strong pieces of evidence---Awarding punishment ofcapital charge on the basis of evidence of last seen was difficult.Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another 2008 SCMR 1103 and Muhammad Abidv. The State and another PLD 2018 SC 813 rel.(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay inlodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder ofthe son of the complainant---In the present case, the complainant had knowledge aboutmissing of the deceased on 13.07.2019, but despite that, the he did not lodge the report andthe report was lodged on 16.07.2019 at 10:30 a.m.---Nothing came on record aboutlodgement of the report of missing of the deceased by the complainant in Levies Thana---Record showed that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the water tank of theMadrasa on 16.07.2019 at 6:30 a.m., and the FIR was lodged on the same date at 10:30 a.m.with a delay of four hours from the recovery of dead body of the deceased---Lodgement ofthe FIR with delay by the complainant created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.Mehmood Ahmed and 3 others v. The State and another 1995 SCMR 127 rel.(e) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Arts. 37, 39 & 40---Disclosure of accused before the police---Scope---Confession madeby accused person, while he was in police custody, was not admissible, however, ifsomething related to the case was recovered or any fact was discovered in consequence ofinformation conveyed by the accused person then the information so received would beadmissible in evidence to the extent of recovery if corroborated with other piece of evidencewithin the purview of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 because then the presumptionwould be towards its truthfulness---If nothing in consequence of the disclosure wasrecovered or discovered then the information so received by itself would not be admissible.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery ofincriminating material on the pointation of accused---Scope---Accused was charged that healong with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant---Record showedthat on the pointation of accused the motorcycle used in the commission of the allegedoffence was recovered from his house and further recovered a piece of rope and chappal ofthe deceased and plastic bag from the place of occurrence and the same were taken intopossession through recovery memo---Official witness stated during cross-examination thatthe recovered articles were not sealed---No sealed parcel was made by the InvestigationAgency---Alleged rope and chappal were easily available in the village or at any place--- Nothing on the file that the piece of rope was used/ caused the death of the deceased---Imperatively, recovery of the articles could not be termed as discovery, when it was notrecovered from any hidden place---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failedto prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, incircumstances.Mst. Askar Jan and others v. Muhammad Daud and others 2010 SCMR 1604 rel.(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay in disclosure made by accused before the police---Scope---Accused was charged that he and co-accused committed murder of the son of thecomplainant---Record showed that the accused was arrested and the alleged disclosure wasmade by the accused with a delay of 14 days under the custody of the police---Saiddisclosure was not made in the presence of Magistrate---In the absence of any strongcircumstantial piece of evidence, such disclosure was of no legal value---Appeal againstconviction was allowed, in circumstances.(h) Criminal trial-------Circumstantial evidence---Scope---To base conviction on circumstantial evidence,interlinked chain of credible and cogent corroborative evidence was to be available on therecord.

Summary: Acquittal granted---Background:Muhammad Azam was shot dead on March 3, 2008, within the precincts of Police Station Barrana District Jhang. The incident occurred while he was irrigating his land, accompanied by witnesses, including his brother Imtiaz Ahmed (PW-1). The petitioners, Amjad and his father, were accused of the murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with others, confronted the deceased and shot him over a previous dispute. The trial court convicted the petitioners under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced them to death. The Lahore High Court upheld the convictions but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment. Both the convicts and the complainant challenged this decision.---Issues:Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt.Whether the discrepancies and suppressed evidence cast doubt on the prosecution's case.Whether the alternative explanation offered by the accused raised reasonable doubt about their involvement in the crime.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court thoroughly examined the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. It noted several discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the suppression of injuries sustained by some of the accused and the absence of Shahida Bibi, a key witness, from the scene. The court also considered the alternative explanation provided by the accused, which raised doubts about the sequence of events presented by the prosecution. Additionally, medical examinations revealed injuries on the accused consistent with their claim of acting in self-defense. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioners beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, it acquitted the petitioners of the charges and ordered their release. Criminal Petition No.457-L of 2016 was converted into an appeal and allowed, while Criminal Petition No.400-L of 2016 was dismissed.---Citations/Precedents:Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860: Provides for punishment for murder.Principles of Evidence: Emphasize the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to establish guilt in criminal cases.Case law on self-defense: Relevant to assessing the credibility of the alternative explanation provided by the accused.Previous judgments on circumstantial evidence: Applied to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case in light of discrepancies and suppressed evidence.

Summary: Background:M/s Sazco (Pvt.) Ltd (?appellant-company?) entered into an agreement with M/s Alpha International Trading and Enterprise Services for the supply of goods from the United Kingdom. To facilitate payment, the appellant approached M/s Askari Commercial Bank for an irrevocable documentary letter of credit (L.C.). The bank agreed and opened two L.C.s, under which a nominated bank in the UK was designated to make payments to the supplier upon presentation of required documents.----Issues:Whether the appellant-company could have a cause of action against the Issuing bank/respondent bank in Pakistan for the acceptance of discrepant documents by the Nominated bank in the UK.Whether the appellant-company's claim regarding the tendered Bills of Lading being forged constitutes a violation of the UCP 500, warranting relief.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that there was a contractual relationship between the appellant and the Issuing bank. The Issuing bank, as the principal, was bound by the actions of its agent, the Nominated bank. The appellant had a valid cause of action against the Issuing bank for the actions or inactions of its agent. However, the appellant failed to prove fraud regarding the tendered Bills of Lading. The Bills of Lading were found to be in accordance with the terms of the L.C.s, and the appellant's allegations were deemed unsubstantiated.----Citations/Precedents:Hamzeh Malas and Sons v. British Imex Industries Ltd. 1958 (2) Q.B. 127Abdul Kadir Jangda v. My Bank Ltd. 2007 CLD 349Bank Solvency and Guaranty Letters of Credit, Stanford Law Review V. 25 (1972 at p. 719)R D Harbottle Limited v. National Westminster Bank (1977) 2 All ER 862Halsbury?s ?Laws of England?UCP 500, Articles 3, 4, 13, and 14Sztejn v. J Henry Schroder Banking Corp. 1941 31 NYS 2d 631Blonder & Co. v. Citibank, N.A. 28 A.D.3d 180

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Accused was charged for forcibly taking away the motorbike of thecomplainant after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of thecomplainant, his right hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---When thecomplainant was subjected to cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that on the day ofoccurrence, he attempted to molest the accused---Record showed that the age of the accusedwas seventeen years, which was mentioned in the statement of the accused recorded underS.164, Cr.P.C. as well as in his statement recorded under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.---InvestigatingOfficer stated during cross-examination that the accused filed an application for registrationof the FIR against the complainant in respect of molesting him---Said witness further statedduring cross-examination that he conducted an inquiry under S.157(2), Cr.P.C., however, hestated that the father of the accused did not produce any witness in the said inquiry---Witnessfurther stated during cross-examination that the accused was a student---On the other hand,the record transpired that the age of the complainant was thirty six years---According to themedical certificate, the complainant received two injuries on his hand and there was slightlyabrasion marks on his neck, meaning thereby that both the accused and the complainantscuffled with each other at the time of occurrence---Student of the age of 16/17 years couldnot tie the hands and feet of a person of the age of the complainant, i.e. 36 years--- Complainant stated that he came struggling to the road and told the people that the accusedwas a thief and was trying to snatch his motorcycle---Complainant stated that people caughthold of the accused and informed the levies officials---Said fact did not appeal to a prudentmind as to how did the complainant come to the road and told the people about theoccurrence, even though his hands and feet were tied and the accused would still wait thepeople and the levies officials to come and arrest him---Circumstances established that theprosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt--- Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Scope---Accused wascharged for taking away the motorbike of the complainant forcibly after tiding his hands andfeet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, his right hand was injured, howeveraccused was apprehended---Recovery witness of the knife stated that he reached the place of occurrence along with the Investigation Officer and recovered the knife from theaccused/appellant---Said witness stated during cross-examination that they reached the placeof occurrence at 1:10 pm and remained there for fifteen minutes---Witness further statedduring cross-examination that they took the accused and reached the Levies Thana at 2:10pm.---On the other hand, the Investigating Officer stated that the investigation was handedover to him at 2:00 p.m. and he reached the place of occurrence at 2:30 p.m., complainantand other levies officials were present at the spot---Alleged occurrence took place at 1:00p.m. and the FIR was registered on the same date at 1:50 p.m.---Said contradictory statementof both the said witnesses with regard to the time of lodging FIR casted reasonable doubt inthe prosecution case and it had not come on record as to how and who recorded the statementof the complainant and whether the statement was recorded on the spot or the levies thana---Circum-stances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against accusedbeyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.(c) Criminal trial-------Witness--- Eye-witnesses, statement of--- Contradictions--- Effect--- Person makingcontradictions and improvements could not be held worthy of credence.(d) Criminal trial-------Witness---Injured witness---Scope---Injuries of a witness was only an indication of hispresence at the spot but was not informative proof of his credibility and truth.(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery--- Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of weapon of offence from the possession of accused---Reliance--- Scope---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of the complainantforcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, hisright hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---Record showed that knife ascrime weapon was recovered from the possession of accused---Recovery witness of thealleged occurrence stated that when he reached the place of occurrence and knife wasrecovered from the accused---Said witness, during cross-examination, stated that when theyreached the place of occurrence, many people had gathered at the spot, who had apprehendedthe accused---Said fact did not appeal to a prudent mind that accused who had beenapprehended by the people would keep the knife with himself till the time when the leviesofficials reached, i.e. after ten minutes---Said aspect of the matter created reasonable doubtin the prosecution case---Even otherwise, the prosecution did not produce any corroborativeevidence in support of the statement of recovery witness and none of the other witnessesstated a single word to the effect that the knife was recovered from the accused---Recoverywitness stated during cross-examination that the knife, which was produced before the courtwas not stained with blood---Investigating Officer also did not send the knife to the ForensicScience Laboratory, therefore, that piece of evidence provided no help to the prosecution'scase.(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence--- Benefit of doubt---Confessional statementof accused---Scope---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of the complainantforcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, hisright hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---Record showed that thestatement of the accused was recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C had not corroborated with theFIR as well as the statement of the complainant---Accused neither stated a single word thathe tied the hands and feet of the complainant nor he stated a single word that he kept theknife on the neck of the complainant and tried to snatch his motorcycle---Circumstancesestablished that prosecution failed to establish case against accused.(g) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 164---Confession, recording of---Judicial Magistrate, before recording the confessionalstatement of the accused, was to essentially observe all the mandatory precautions as perHigh Court Rules and Orders so that all signs of fear inculcated by the investigation agencyin the mind of the accused were to be shed out.(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confession, recordingof---Procedure---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of the complainantforcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of the complainant, hisright hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---No precautionary measures,which, in the circumstances of the case, were pre-requisite for recording the confession of aminor accused were observed---Accused, being a minor was provided with no opportunity ofcounselling, neither by his guardian nor by a lawyer---Judicial Magistrate did not state asingle word in his statement as well as in the certificate issued by her that any offer wasmade to the accused for counselling---Confession of the minor was to be assessed on thesame touchstone as to that of the statement of a child witness---Child witness was brought tothe dock by relatives while on the contrary child accused was brought to the court by PoliceOfficials for recording his confessional statement where the possibility of tutoring and policefear was always there---Judicial Magistrate did not put the question to the accused that afterrecording his statement he would not be handed over to police or levies---Judicial Magistratefilled the answers without adhering to the codal formalities and without considering theintellectual level of the minor who was unaware of the consequences of his statement---Judicial Magistrate after recording the statement of the accused under S.164, Cr.P.C handedover the accused to the same levies officials who produced him before her to take him forjudicial remand---Confessional statement of the accused in circumstances, was not voluntaryand gross illegality was committed by Judicial Magistrate.Hashim Qasim and another v. The State 2017 SCMR 986 and State through AdvocateGeneral Sindh, Karachi v. Farman Hussain and others PLD 1995 SC 1 rel.(i) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confession, recordingof---Infirmities---Effect---Accused was charged for taking away the motorbike of thecomplainant forcibly after tiding his hands and feet with rope and due to resistance of thecomplainant, his right hand was injured, however accused was apprehended---Recordshowed that the Judicial Magistrate had not given sufficient time for reflection beforerecording the statement of the accused under S.164, Cr.P.C. as it was incumbent upon her tohave given sufficient time for reflection, i.e. thirty minutes, with three intervals; henceforthby not doing so, Judicial Magistrate failed to observe pre-cautions held necessary beforerecording confessional statement---Neither the Judicial Magistrate stated a single word in herstatement that she gave time for reflection to the accused nor mentioned the time ofreflection in her certificate issued beneath the confessional statement of the accused---Judicial Magistrate stated during cross-examination that she recorded the statement of theaccused under S.164, Cr.P.C within 15/20 minutes---Investigating Officer stated duringcross-examination that Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused within halfhour---Said fact showed that no time for reflection had been given to the accused beforerecording his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., as envisaged under S.364, Cr.P.C., thereforethe confessional statement of the accused did not appear to be true and voluntary.(j) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 394---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Voluntarily causing hurt incommitting robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about ten daysin recording the confessional statement of the accused---Scope---Accused was charged fortaking away the motorbike of the complainant forcibly after tiding his hands and feet withrope and due to resistance of the complainant, his right hand was injured, however accusedwas apprehended---Record showed that the accused was arrested and he was produced beforethe Judicial Magistrate after ten days of his arrest for recording his confessional statementunder S.164, Cr.P.C.---Said delay had not been plausibly explained by the prosecution,which had highly injured its credibility and the same could not be accepted as confidenceinspiring against the accused.Naqeebullah's case PLD 1978 SC 21; Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003SCMR 1419; Shoukat Saeed v. The State PLD 1978 Quetta 1 and Pato and another v. TheState 2012 MLD 1358 rel.(k) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 164--- Confessional statement---Evidentiary value--- Confessional statement was not tobe accepted as a substantive piece of evidence to place conviction on it alone unless it wascorroborated in each and every detail by other corroborative and circumstantial evidence.

Summary: PLJ 2020 Peshawar 24 Present Syed Arshad Ali J MOHABAT SHAH and 6 others - - Appellants versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary and 16 others - - Respondents RFA No 87 - M of 2017 decided on 1332019 Land Acquisition Act 1894 (I of 1894) - - - - - - Ss 4 9 (1) 9 (3) 10 11 18 - - Issuance of letter for acquisition of land - - Construction of police lines - - Issuance of notices to interested persons - - Filling of objections - - Rejected - - Announcement of award - - Filling of objection petitions - - Assessment of market value - - Appointment of local commission - - Report of local commission - - Reference was partially allowed - - Enhancement of compensation amount - - Filling of appeals - - Appointment of fresh local commission - - Recommendations of local commission - - Case was remanded - - Acceptance of reference - - Determination of compensation - - Challenge to - - Compensation of land was determined keeping in view average one year sale in area in year 2010 when Notification under Section 4 of Act was issued whereas award was announced on 13022013 and possession was taken by respondents after award - - Therefore probable increase in land in said three years cannot be ignored - - Carefully perused entire evidence and reached at conclusion keeping in view principle laid down by august Supreme Court of Pakistan that market rate compensation determined by learned Referee Court is correct and in accordance with law which does not call for interference - - Appeal was dismissed [Pp 34] A B 2011 SCMR 1244 and 2014 SCMR 75 ref Mr Haq Nawaz Advocate for Appellants Mr Haq Nawaz Asstt AG for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal was dismissed