2023 P Cr. L J 1489
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Nazeer Ahmed Langove, JJ
RAMZAN and others ---Appellants
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Appeals Nos. 289, 311 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 21 of 2021, decided on
22nd August, 2022.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl -i-amd, common intention ---Appreciation of evidence ---Disclosure
made by accused before a 'Jirga' ---Scope ---Accused were charged for committing murder of
the son of complainant by slaughtering him with sharp edged weapon--- Allegation levelled
against the accused persons was that they in furtherance of their common intention, called the complainant's son in the area of a garden, tied his hands and then slaughtered him ---First
Information Report was initially registered against unknown persons, but thereafter, the complainant filed his supplementary statement by nominating the accused persons in the case---Prosecution case mainly rested upon the statement of disclosures made by the accused,
firstly before the Jirga, which was requisitioned to ascertain the truth, wherein the said accused confessed his guilt while nominating the other accused persons for commission of offence---Disclosure and the proceedings of the jirga were recorded by the brother of deceased in his mobile and saved in his memory card ---Said memory card was taken into
possession vide recovery memo and produced before the Trial Court ---Said accused also
made disclosure before the Judicial Magistrate ---Record was indicative of the fact that the
alleged memory card containing the video of alleged disclosure of said accused before the jirga was not visualized/played in the Court during trial nor the accused was afforded an opportunity to admit or rebut the same, nor the witness(es) of the said jirga was/were associated with investigation and nor produced before the Court to ascertain the factual position--- Resultantly, the case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to summon
at least two witnesses/members/participants of the Jirga, in front of whom the accused had made disclosure, while the Investigating Officer of the case was directed to prepare CD of the video clip, and provide the same to the accused persons and thereafter, the same be visualized/played in the Court in presence of brother of deceased, and opportunity of rebuttal/cross -examination be provided to the accused persons ---Appeal was disposed of in
the above terms.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl -i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence --- Defective
investigation--- Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by
slaughtering him with sharp edged weapon--- Initially the investigation of the case was
conducted by the levies, but the Tehsildar, Investigating Officer destroyed the case by
ignoring the material evidence ---Complainant being dissatisfied from the investigation
conducted by levies, submitted an application for transfer of case to the Crimes Branch,
which course was accordingly done and investigation was transferred to the Crimes Branch--
-Unfortunately Sub- Inspector, Crimes Branch, also failed to collect the necessary evidence
and record the statements of the material witnesses ---File showed that due to obliviousness
of first Investigating Officer, reasonable delay seemed to have been occasioned for collecting
and recording necessary evidence, but the negligence of second Investigating Officer had also caused serious flaws in the prosecution case, which seemed to be colorful exercise of powers by both the Investigating Officers ---Delay in recording the necessary evidence is not
always fatal to the prosecution case, but any such delay castes reasonable doubt and suspicion on veracity of evidence so collected and recorded--- Complainant and other
witnesses could not be held responsible for such delay, which was ultimately caused by mis -
exercising of power for extending undue leverage to the accused--- Since such aspects of the
case were yet to be addressed, therefore, Court intentionally refrained to render any observation in that behalf ---Appeals were partly allowed and case was remanded to Trial
Court.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence ---Extra -
judicial confession of accused---Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by slaughtering him with sharp edged weapon ---Accused was neither nominated
nor arrested nor was in custody of any investigating agency, when he made the extra -judicial
confession, thus its veracity and voluntariness before the Jirga was required to be ascertained and to do so the Trial Court had ample powers under the rel evant provision of law ---
However, such part of the evidence had not been put to the accused during trial, nor the same was played/visualized in the court, nor any copy of the same was provided to the accused persons, enabling them to admit or rebut the same ---Jirga before which the extra- judicial
confession was made consisted of about 200 persons, but the Investigating Officer had failed to associate any member of the Jirga, in presence of whom, the accused had made disclosure in respect of commission of the offence--- Similarly, the Trial Court also failed to observe the
necessity of the presence of Jirga members/participants as witnesses ---Thus, keeping in view
the circumstances of the case, the statements of Jirga members/ participants were essential for just decision of the case and summoning them as a witness would be justified under the second part of S. 540, Cr.P.C.---However, prior to summoning the Jirga members/ participants, the accused could not be deprived of his right of holding the copy of the vi deo
clip---Thus, without going into merit of the case and rendering any observation thereon, it
would be appropriate to direct the Investigating Officer of the Crimes Branch at first instance to ensure provision of a CD of the visual clip/video record of the Jirga proceedings to the accused persons, and thereafter, the Trial court shall ensure summoning of at least two Jirga members/participants for confirmation of the constitution of Jirga, proceedings carried out therein and the disclosure made by the accused before the same, and by playing the video of the Jirga proceedings in the court shall also ensure a fair opportunity to the accused persons
to cross -examine the witness(es) so produced--- Since the recording was made by the brother
of deceased and the memory card was produced by the recovery witness, therefore, said
witnesses shall also be recalled and re- examined with opportunity to the accused persons to
cross -examine them ---Resultantly, the case was remanded to the Trial Court with direction to
summon at least two witnesses/members/participants of the Jirga, in front of whom the
accused had made disclosure, while the Investigating Officer of the case was directed to
prepare CD of the video clip, provide the same to the accused persons and thereafter, the
same be visualized/played in the Court in presence of brother of deceased, and opportunity of rebuttal/cross -examination be provided to the accused persons ---Appeal was disposed of in
the above terms.
Syed Manzoor Shah for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2021).
Nadir Ali Chalgari for the Complainant (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 289 and 311 of
2021).
Muhammad Yunus Mengal, A.P.G. for the State (in Criminal Appeals Nos. 289, 311
and Criminal Revision Petition No. 21 of 2021).
Wali Muhammad Barrech for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 2021).
Nadir Ali Chalgari for Petitioner (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 21 of 2021).
Syed Manzoor Shah for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Criminal Revision Petition No.
21 of 2021).
Wali Muhammad Barrech for Respondent No. 3 (in Criminal Revision Petition No. 21
of 2021).
Date of hearing: 16th June, 2022.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J. ---These connected Criminal
Appeals and the Criminal Revision Petition are directed against the judgment dated 24th June 2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Zhob, and since common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, we intend to dispose of these Criminal Appeals and Criminal Revision Petition through this common judgment.
2. Appellants/convicts in Criminal Appeal No. 289 of 2021 and in Criminal Appeal No.
311 of 2021 have called in question the judgment dated 24th June 2021 ("impugned judgment"), passed by learned Sessions Judge, Zhob, ("trial court"), whereby, they were convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C.") as Ta'azir and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment each with an amount of Rs.100,000/ - (Rupees one
hundred thousand) each as compensation to be payable to the legal heirs of decease d Sarwar
Khan. In default whereof, they would further suffer SI for six months each with benefit of
section 382 -B of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C). Whereas, the Criminal
Revision Petition No. 21 of 2021, is preferred by the petitioner/complainant Muhammad
Ayub, for enhancement of sentence from life to death sentence.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 10th January 2020 at 3:30 p.m. complainant
Muhammad Ayub, lodged a report vide FIR No.01 of 2020 with levies thana, Qamardin, District Zhob with the averments that he is resident of Qamardin Karez, Tehsil Kakar Khurasan, District Zhob, on 09th January 2020 at about 08:00 a.m. his son namely Sarwar Khan left his house for Qamardin Karez, but did not return till night, thus, on the next morning they went in search of his son, when his son's dead body was found near Akbar Khan's Garden, whose hands were fastened behind back with rope and he was slaughtered with a sharp edged weapon. Hence, the instant FIR was lodged.
4. Initially FIR was registered against unknown persons however, subsequently, on 15th
April 2020, the complainant filed supplementary statement, whereby the appellants/accused persons were nominated in the instant case. On completion of investigation, the challan was submitted before the trial court, where charge was framed and read over to the appellants, to which they did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge produced as many as eight (08) witnesses viz PW -1 Muhammad
Ayub (complainant), PW -2, Dr. Shehbaz Khan (Medical Officer), PW- 3 Ghulam Muhammad
(witness to recovery memo), PW- 4 Muhammad Qasim (Judicial Magistrate), PW -5 Nawab
Khan (brother of deceased), PW -6 Zaheer Abbas ASI Crimes Branch (witness to the
recovery memo), PW -7 Imran Khan, Tehsildar Qamardin Karez, (first investigating officer)
PW-8 Muhammad Ibrahim, SI/(second investigating officer).
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellants were
recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C; wherein they once again professed their innocence and denied the allegation levelled against them. However, they did not opt to record their statements on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C nor produced any witness in their defence. On conclusion of the trial the appellants were convicted and sentenced in the aforesaid terms. Hence, this appeal.
6. Syed Manzoor Shah, learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 289 of
2021 argued that the impugned judgment is against law and the facts of the case, that admittedly, the incident was unseen, but the appellants have been nominated and dragged in the instant case on basis of supplementary statement, which was recorded after four months of the incident, that too without disclosing the source; that there was no incriminating evidence available against the appellants to connect them with the commission of the offence, however, the alleged disclosure made by the appellant Masood Khan, was not established through independent evidence, thus the same cannot be relied; that there were material irregularities and illegalities in the impugned judgment, and thus the same is liable to be set -aside.
Mr. Wali Muhammad Barrech, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal
No. 311 of 2021, while adopting the arguments advanced by Syed Manzoor Shah, Advocate, contended that there is no iota of evidence against the appellant Masood Ahmed, rather he
was implicated in the instant case on basis of the alleged disclosure made before the Jirga
and recorded in memory card, but neither any witness of the said Jirga was produced before the court, nor the said recovery memo was put to the appellant with an opportunity to rebut the same, thus, the same cannot be used/considered against him; that the entire prosecution case based upon circumstantial evidence, but no chain of circumstances were developed to
prove the charge against the appellant(s), therefore, the impugned judgment is not
sustainable; he therefore, urged for acquittal of the appellant Masood Khan.
Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner in Criminal Revision
Petition No. 21 of 2021 opposed the contention of the counsel for the appellants and
contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellants through confidence inspiring evidence; that the appellant Masood Khan had admitted his guilt firstly by recording disclosure before the Jirga and thereafter by recording his judicial confession under section 164, Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate; that the prosecution has produced sufficient incriminating evidence against the appellants, and the learned trial court took extra ordinary lenient view in the case, despite the fact that the prosecution had fully proved its case coupled with the fact that the motive behind the incident and the common intention of the appellants was also established. He lastly urged for dismissal of the appeal, with further request for enhancement of the conviction from life to that of death.
Learned Deputy Prosecutor General adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the
complainant and requested for dismissal of the petition.
7. We have heard the arguments and gone through the record along with the impugned
judgment.
8. In the instant case, the allegation levelled against the appellants/convicts was that
they in furtherance of their common intention, brought by calling the complainant's son namely Sarwar Khan in the area of Akbar Khan's garden, tied his hands and then slaughtered him. The FIR was initially registered against unknown persons, but thereafter, the complainant filed his supplementary statement Ex -P/1-B, by nominating the appellants in the
instant case. The prosecution case mainly rests upon the statement of disclosures made by the
appellant Masood Khan, firstly on 08th February 2020, before the Jirga, which was requisitioned to ascertain the truth, wherein the appellant Masood Khan, confessed his guilt while nominating the appellants Nawab and Ramzan in commission of offence. The disclosure and the proceedings of the Jirga were recorded by the PW -5 in his mobile and
saved in his memory card. The said memory card was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex -P/6-A and produced before the trial court as Art -P/14 to Art/P -16. The appellant
Masood Ahmed also made disclosure before the PW -4 Muhammad Qasim Judicial
Magistrate, Sariab Quetta. The record is indicative of the fact that the alleged memory card containing the video of alleged disclosure of appellant Masood Khan before the Jirga was not visualized/played in the court during trial nor the appellants was afforded an opportunity to admit or rebut the same, nor the witness(es) of the said Jirga was/were associated with investigation and nor produced before t he court to ascertain the factual position. However, to
ascertain and unearth the truth and in order to administer the justice, the trial court was empowered to have summoned any witness or witnesses, if so satisfied, that such witness(es)
was/were essential for just decision of the case. Before dilating upon the discretion of the
Trial Court under section 540, Cr.P.C., we would deem it appropriate to refer section 265- F,
Cr.P.C, particularly, its subsection (2), which is very much relevant keeping in view the nature of the controversy with which this Court is confronted.
"Section 265- F Evidence for prosecution: ---(1) If the accused does not plead guilty or
the Court in its discretion does not convict him on his plea, the Court shall proceed to
hear the complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
Provided that the Court shall not be bound to hear any person as complainant in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court.
(2) The Court shall ascertain from the public prosecutor or as the case may be, from the complainant, the names of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution, and shall summon such persons to give evidence before it.
(3)
(4) to 6. .
(7) If the accused or any one or several accused, after entering on his defence, applies to the Court to issue any process for compelling the attendance of any witness for examination or the production of any document or other thing, the Court shall issue such process unless it considers that the application is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating the ends of justice such ground shall be recorded by the
Court in writing".
Section 265 -F, Cr.P.C. referred to above is quite comprehensive. This section has
been added in the Code notwithstanding the already existing provision of section 540, Cr.P.C. in order to ensure the concept of a fair trial and in order to achieve this purpose; equivalent opportunity has been provided to both, the accused as well as the prosecution for summoning the evidence. Subsection (7) of section 265- F, Cr.P.C. grants even a right to
accused to apply for summoning any witness and production of documents; therefore, balance has to be struck between the parties. Section 265- F, Cr.P.C. caters for such situation
where the Court may ascertain from the complainant the name of any person likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case and to be able to give evidence for prosecution. This section does not provide specifically that only those witnesses can be examined whose statements have been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. or their names have been mentioned in the column of witnesses of challan. The intent of the legislature is very much clear from the language of the entire section that the Court can examine any person who is acquainted with the facts of the case, therefore, the Court is not bound to record the statements of only those witnesses who are listed in the calendar of witnesses only, but in order to arrive at a just conclusion, the Court can call any person likely to be acquainted with the facts of the case after ascertaining it from the public prosecutor or the complainant subject to the general provisions that summoning of any such witness does not cause delay or defeat the ends of justice. Whereas, it would be the second option of the Court as to what extent it consider or rely on the statement of such witness(es).
9. Correspondingly, the trial court while exercising its powers as envisaged under
section 540, Cr.P.C. can summon a material witness even if his/her name does not appear in
the column of witnesses of the challan, provided that his/her evidence is deemed essential by the Trial Court for the right decision of the case. For ready reference, it would be advantageous to refer section 540, Cr.P.C, which stipulates as under:
"540. Power to summon material witness or examine persons present. Any Court may at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re -examine any person already examined; and the Court shall
summon and examine or recall and re -examine any such person if his evidence
appears to it essential to the just decision of the case."
There can be no dispute with the proposition that section 540, Cr.P.C has two parts.
The first part confers wide jurisdiction on the Court to summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re -
examine any person already examined. Whereas, the second part places an obligation on the Court to summon and examine or recall or re -examine any such person, if his evidence
appears to be essential to a just decision of the case. The first part is discretionary in nature,
whereas the second is mandatory. According to the first part, it is discretionary with the
Court to summon any person as a witness suo motu or on an application, whereas according to the second part, powers to summon, examine, recall or re -examine any person as a
witness, are to be exercised with due dare and great caution. There should be some convincing evidence/material available on record from which it is to be inferred that the examination of a particular person as a witness is essential for the just decision of the case. Power under section 540, Cr.P.C. can be exercised if the Trial Court feels that the evidence of such a person is essential for the just decision of the case. In exercising discretion under
the first part, the Court will have regard to the basic principles of a fair trial, which are well established. While under the second part, the Court has no discretion. The over -riding
consideration over the second part is the duty of the Court to do justice. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of any person is essential to the just decision of the case, the evidence of that person must be made part of the record of the case in accordance with law. This legal proposition has been exhaustively explained/clarified in the case of "Muhammad Azam v. Muhammad Iqbal and others" (PLD 1984 SC 95), therefore, reference to various portions of the judgment would be helpful. It has been observed at Page No.118 of the judgment:-
"This provision is divided into two parts: one where it is only discretionary for the Court to summon a Court -witness suo motu or on application, and the second part
where it is mandatory for the Court to do so. The main condition to be satisfied with regard to the second part is that the evidence to be summoned under this part should appear to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case. As has already been observed the evidence in question relating to Nikah was undoubtedly essential for the just decision of the case. In the circumstances of this case the failure of the learned trial Judge to act under the said part of section 540, Cr.P.C has not only deprived the Appellate Courts of essential material for the just decision of the appeal, but has also occasioned miscarriage of justice."
The observation at page 120 of the said judgment reads: --
"The failure of the parties to produce sufficient evidence after introducing this subject
should not have deterred the trial Court in performing the duty under the second part of section 540, Cr.P.C. The trial Court has, as discussed about, failed to do so and therefore, on this account also the case merits remand for fresh trial."
10. Moreover, section 265- C, Cr.P.C protects the right of an accused, who is charged with
a criminal offence to have access or to be provided copy(ies) of all evidence(s), sought to be produced against him by the prosecution. The object of this section is to enable the accused to know before he/they was/were sent up to stand his/their trial in a charge punishable with death or imprisonment for life, as to what evidence they would have to meet at the trial. Section 265 -C, Cr.P.C stipulates as under:
265- C. Supply of statements and documents to the accused: (1) In all cases instituted
upon police report, copies of the following documents shall be supplied free of cost to the accused not later than seven days before the commencement of the trial, namely -
(a) the first information reports
(b) the police report;
(c) the statements of all witnesses recorded under sections 161 and 164; and
(d) the inspection note recorded by an investigation officer on his first visit, to the place of occurrence and the note recorded by him on recoveries made, if any:
Provided that, If arty part of a statement recorded under section 161 or section 464 is such that its disclosure to the accused would be inexpedient in the public interest, such part of the statement shall be excluded from the copy of the statement furnished
to the accused.
2) .
Whereas, Article 164 of Qanun -e-Shahadat Order, 1984 deals with the admissibility
of evidence available because of modern devices, which stipulates as under:
"Article 164. Production of evidence that has become available because of modern devices, etc. In such cases as the Court may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to be produced any evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or techniques.
(Provided that conviction on the basis of modern devices or techniques may be lawful)."
The afore- referred section allows the accused to have copies of all evidences,
intended to be produced against him by the prosecution, including the evidence available through modern devices, but it is evident from the case file, that no copy of the video was provided to the appellant either before framing of charge or during trial.
11. We are dismayed to observe here that unfortunately the trial court has escaped notice
of mandatory provisions of law, which have been incorporated to do a complete justice, but it
appears that the learned trial court with fear of filling up the lacunas, has ignored the
mandatory provision, when the dictate of justice stipulates and ordains for even- handed
justice.
On perusal of the record it has also been observed that initially the investigation of
the case was conducted by the levies Qamardin Karez, when PW- 7 Imran Khan, Tehsildar
Qamadin Karez, Investigating Officer destroyed the case by ignoring the material evidence. It appears that the complainant being dissatisfied from the investigation conducted by levies, submitted an application for transfer of case to the Crimes Branch, which course was accordingly done and investigation was transferred to the Crimes Branch Quetta vide order dated 17th March 2020, but unfortunately PW -8 Muhammad Ibrahim SI PS Crimes Branch
Quetta also failed to collect the necessary evidence and record the statements of the material witnesses. The file shows that due to obliviousness of first IO, reasonable delay is seemed to have been occasioned for collecting and recording necessary evidence, but the negligence of second IO has also caused serious flaws in the prosecution case, which seems to be colorful exercise of powers by both the investigating officers. Needless to add here that delay in recording the necessary evidence is not always fatal to the prosecution case, but any such delay casts reasonable doubt and suspicion on veracity of evidence so collected and recorded.
The complainant and other witnesses cannot be held responsible for such delay, which was
ultimately caused by mis -exercising of power for extending undue leverage to the accused.
Since these aspects of the case are yet to be addressed, therefore, we intentionally refrain to render any observation in this behalf.
11.(sic.) In the case in hand the prosecution case rests upon the disclosure of appellant
Masood Ahmed, who has allegedly confessed commission of offence and his guilt before the
Jirga, and also nominated the other appellants/accused persons, while the whole episode of the Jirga proceedings were recorded by the PW -5 in his mobile, and the said recording being
saved in the memory card was taken into possession through PW -6 and produced before the
trial court.
Needless to observe here that when the appellant was neither nominated nor arrested
nor was in custody of any investigating agency, thus veracity and voluntariness of his extra judicial confession before the Jirga was required to be ascertained and to do the said needful, the trial court was having ample powers under the afore -referred provisions of Law, which
otherwise without invoking the afore -referred provisions of law was not possible and the trial
court was having ample powers to do a complete justice.
However, such part of the evidence has not been put to the accused during trial, nor
the same was played/visualized in the court, nor any copy of the same was provided to the appellants, enabling them to admit or rebut the same. It is also apparent from the case file that the said Jirga was consisting of about 200 persons, but the investigating officer has failed to associate any member of the Jirga, in front or presence of whom, the appellant Masood Khan had made disclosure in respect of commission of the offence. Similarly, the
trial court also failed to observe the necessity of the presence of Jirga members/ participants as witness. Thus, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the statements of Jirga members/participants were/are essential for just decision of the case and summoning them as
a witness would be justified under the second part of section 540, Cr.P.C. However, prior to
summoning the Jirga members/participants, the accused cannot be deprived of his right of holding the copy of the video clip. Therefore, without going into merit of the case and rendering any observation thereon, we deem it appropriate to direct the investigating officer of the Crimes Branch Quetta at first instance to ensure provision of a CD of the visual
clip/video record of the Jirga proceedings to the appellants, and thereafter, the trial court
shall ensure summoning of the at least two Jirga members/participants for confirmation of
the constitution of Jirga, proceedings carried out thereon and the disclosure made by the appellant Masood Khan before the same, and by playing the video of the Jirga proceedings in the court, shall also ensure a fair opportunity to the appellants to cross -examine the
witness(es) so produced. Since the recording was made by the PW -5 and the memory card
was produced by the PW -6, therefore, PW -5 and 6 shall also be recalled and re -examined
with opportunity to the appellants to cross -examine them.
For what has been discussed above, the instant criminal appeals are partly allowed
and the judgment dated 24th June 2021 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Zhob is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the case is remanded to the trial court with direction to summon the at least two witnesses/members/participants of the Jirga, in front of whom the appellant Masood
Ahmed had made disclosure, while the IO of the case is directed to prepare CD of the video
clip, provide the same to the appellants and thereafter, the same be visualized/played in the court in presence of PW- 5, and opportunity of rebuttal/cross -examination be provided to the
appellants. Thereafter, finally adjudicate the case on basis of available record/evidence, but strictly in accordance with Law.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, while the Connected Criminal
Revision Petition in view of remand of the case to the trial court, stands disposed of.
Office to transmit the copy of this order to the Inspection Branch of this Court, with
direction to call upon the Presiding Officer of the trial court to explain that why such unnatural irregularities, accumulating into gross illegalities have been committed. The explanation in this behalf shall be submitted within one month from receipt of intimation from the Inspection Branch. Similarly, the Deputy Commissioner, Zhob is directed not to entrust any sort of investigation in such like cases to Imran Khan, Tehsildar, Qamardin Karez, while the Deputy Inspector General Crimes Branch, Quetta is also directed to depute any other competent officer of the Crimes Branch, Quetta in the instant case for preparing the copy of the video and submit the interim challan to the extent, with further direction not to entrust the investigation of such like sensitive cases to PW -9 (Muhammad Ibrahim SI Police
Station Crimes Branch, Quetta). Office is directed to transmit copy of this order to the Deputy Commissioner, Zhob, DIG Crimes Branch Quetta for information and compliance. The Member Inspection Team, of High Court of Balochistan is also directed to transmit copy of this order to all the criminal Courts in the Province for information and compliance.
JK/198/Bal. Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.