پوليس
کي ماڻهو مارڻ جو ڪو اختيار ناهي، چاهي هو ڪيڏو وڏو ڏوهاري هجي، سنڌ هاء
ڪورٽ پوليس جي ڪسٽڊي م مري ويل جوابدار جي خون جو ڪيس پوليس خلاف داخل ڪرڻ
جو حڪم ڏئي ڇڏيو۔
Land Mark Judgement by Justice Salahuddin panhwar against police, accused died in police custody High Court Ordered to register the FIR against the Police (Zahid Hussain Channa & Co)
Ss. 154, 174 & 176---murder in police custody ---Registration of criminal case---Scope---Son of the petitioner aged 15/16 years was nominated in the murder case; he was arrested by the police ; was detained at police Station, where he was tortured---Son of the petitioner was denuded, whipped and mixture of water and "choona" was forcibly put in his mouth as a result he became unconscious, and subsequently he expired in Hospital---Deceased received injuries in custody of police and he was referred to Hospital, where he died and postmortem was conducted---Proceedings under S.176, Cr.P.C., were not initiated---Station House Officer of police Station was bound to record the statement of every informant, and once information, narrated or received by SHO and would spell commission of a cognizable offence, he was left with no discretion, but to incorporate the same into the book as prescribed under S. 154, Cr.P.C., which provision was mandatory in nature---Not the caste, colour, creed or position of accused, but the investigation/trial alone, which would dress an accused with clothes of innocence---Such was not done in the present case---Conduct of the Doctor and police , was not up to the mark in the case---Even concerned Magistrate, was not approached, who otherwise was legally empowered to inquire into in such matters, as provided by S.176, Cr.P.C.---Such legal inquiry was deliberately avoided---Under peculiar circumstances of the present case, it was obligatory on the police Officer-in-charge of police Station; and even the Medical Officer to have informed to the concerned Magistrate for necessary inquiry, but that obligation was not fulfilled in the case---High Court observed that both the functionaries were required to be prosecuted for their negligence---High Court directed that Magistrate would proceed to conduct an inquiry within the scope of S.176, Cr.P.C., which would be in addition to the investigation into FIR ordered to be lodged---Constitutional petition was disposed with the observations that SHO would record statement of petitioner; if same would narrate ingredients of a cognizable offence, he would incorporate the same in the book provided under S.154, Cr.P.C.---If negligence of the Doctor was found with regard to Postmortem of the deceased, Director General Health Services, would be directed to constitute team for probe with regard to postmortem report---Order accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 613 SINDH
( Mst. YASMEEN SHAIKH versus AYAZ PATHAN
Land Mark Judgement by Justice Salahuddin panhwar against police, accused died in police custody High Court Ordered to register the FIR against the Police (Zahid Hussain Channa & Co)
Ss. 154, 174 & 176---murder in police custody ---Registration of criminal case---Scope---Son of the petitioner aged 15/16 years was nominated in the murder case; he was arrested by the police ; was detained at police Station, where he was tortured---Son of the petitioner was denuded, whipped and mixture of water and "choona" was forcibly put in his mouth as a result he became unconscious, and subsequently he expired in Hospital---Deceased received injuries in custody of police and he was referred to Hospital, where he died and postmortem was conducted---Proceedings under S.176, Cr.P.C., were not initiated---Station House Officer of police Station was bound to record the statement of every informant, and once information, narrated or received by SHO and would spell commission of a cognizable offence, he was left with no discretion, but to incorporate the same into the book as prescribed under S. 154, Cr.P.C., which provision was mandatory in nature---Not the caste, colour, creed or position of accused, but the investigation/trial alone, which would dress an accused with clothes of innocence---Such was not done in the present case---Conduct of the Doctor and police , was not up to the mark in the case---Even concerned Magistrate, was not approached, who otherwise was legally empowered to inquire into in such matters, as provided by S.176, Cr.P.C.---Such legal inquiry was deliberately avoided---Under peculiar circumstances of the present case, it was obligatory on the police Officer-in-charge of police Station; and even the Medical Officer to have informed to the concerned Magistrate for necessary inquiry, but that obligation was not fulfilled in the case---High Court observed that both the functionaries were required to be prosecuted for their negligence---High Court directed that Magistrate would proceed to conduct an inquiry within the scope of S.176, Cr.P.C., which would be in addition to the investigation into FIR ordered to be lodged---Constitutional petition was disposed with the observations that SHO would record statement of petitioner; if same would narrate ingredients of a cognizable offence, he would incorporate the same in the book provided under S.154, Cr.P.C.---If negligence of the Doctor was found with regard to Postmortem of the deceased, Director General Health Services, would be directed to constitute team for probe with regard to postmortem report---Order accordingly.
2016 PCrLJ 613 SINDH
( Mst. YASMEEN SHAIKH versus AYAZ PATHAN
No comments:
Post a Comment