Download link PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_jud gements/crl.p._1124_l_2015.pdf
The learned Judges differed on the applicability of Article 27, QSO to the statement of the accused (first version) recorded during investigation, in order to make that statement relevant and admissible in evidence.
Majority View
Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, with whom Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik agreed, while elaborating the scope of Article 27, QSO observed: “Article 27 deals with such external or collateral facts which show the existence of any state of mind. Evidence of such external or collateral facts is admitted to prove a person's state of mind, and not to prove the occurrence itself. Thus, the scope of this Article is that there must be a cluster of facts outside and around the fact in issue or the occurrence from which inference can be drawn to show and support the state of mind in question; such surrounding facts become relevant under Article 27. … These surrounding facts are obviously other than the facts in issue. (Para 32, 36)
Minority view
Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi held: “First plea of the accused is admissible in evidence under Article 27 of the Qanun-eShahdat Order, 1984. … Article 27 of Order 1984 is general principle enabling the Investigating Officer to record the same whereas Article 28 is mere an exception. As a general rule evidence not forming part of the transaction is not admissible, whereas Articles 27/28 are an exception to the said general principle by laying down a rule that admissibility of those fact[s] which might not be tendered in evidence to prove it but these facts are relevant to prove the status [of the] mind [of] the person committing it. For example, the guilt, intent, knowledge, negligence, malice etc.” (Para 9)
12. Raza v. State
Download link PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_jud gements/crl.p._1124_l_2015.pdf
Present Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi
0 Comments