S.302 (b)—Criminal trial —Duty of Court—Proper and legal way of dealing with a criminal case, was that the court should first discuss the prosecution evidence in order to come to an independent finding with regard to the reliability of the. prosecution witnesses, particularly the eye-witnesses and the probability of the story told by them; and then examine the statement of accused under S. 342, Cr. P. C.; the statement under S.340(2), Cr. P. C. and defence evidence—If the court would disbelieve/reject/exclude from consideration the prosecution evidence, then the court must accept the statement of accused as a whole without scrutiny—If the statement under S.342, Cr. P. C. was exculpatory, then he must be acquitted—If the statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. believed as a whole, would constitute some offence punishable under the Code/Law then accused should be convicted for that offence only—In the case of counter version, if the court believed that prosecution evidence was not prepared to exclude the same from consideration it would not straightaway convict accused but would review the entire evidence including the circumstance appearing in the case before reaching at conclusion regarding the truth or falsity of the defence plea/version–All the factors favouring belief in the accusation must be placed in juxtaposition to the corresponding factors favouring the plea in defence and the total effect should be estimated in relation to the question, was the plea/version raised by accused satisfactorily established by the evidence and circumstances appearing in the case—If the answer be in the affirmative, then the court must accept the plea of accused and act accordingly—If the answer to the question be in the negative, then the court would not reject the defence plea as being false, but would go a step further to find out whether or not there was yet a reasonable possibility of defence plea/version being true—If the court found that though accused had failed to establish his plea/version to the satisfaction of the court, but his plea might reasonably be true, even then the court must accept his plea and acquit or convict him accordingly—Confessional statement was liable to be recorded as early as possible—In a blind murder case where no direct ocular evidence was available, reappraisal of evidence was necessary at the time of postmortem—Doctor ought to have determined the blood group of deceased from Chemical examination.
|Citation Name : 2009 YLR 1279 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH|
|Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAFIQ|
|Side Opponent : State|