2002 PLP 2176 (YLR)

2. The facts of the case in brief as narrated by the complainant through Exh.P.A. are that the complainant Muhammad Javid was standing in front of his shop at about 6‑19 p.m. after hearing voice of Bomb blast. All of a sudden an other bomb blast took place in the shop of Muhammad Hayat and smoke spread all over there. Shops of the complainant and Muhammad Hayat fell down and it created panic among the people l1i Main Bazar Kamoke. As a result of bomb Nast Muhammad Asghar, Shahzad Javed, Muhammad Arif, Irfan, Muhammad Latif, Arif, Bashir Ahmad, Munawar Bibi, Amjid, Saeed Ishtique, Tariq, Ikram, Zahid, Ulfat Shahzadi, Muhammad Afzal Shahid, Amjid Ali, Rashid, Muhammad Hussain, Tahira Munir and Muhammad Akhtar received injuries. Muhammad Akhtar after receiving serious injuries was removed to Hospital. The matter was reported to the police.

3. The local police after receiving information about the occurrence completed all the necessary formalities and Muhammad Nawaz, S.‑I. alongwith his subordinates proceeded to the spot and he prepared rough site plan Exh.P.T. He also took into possession the blood‑stained earth from the place where dead body of Irfan was lying vide memo. Exh.P.D. He also took into possession the blood‑stained earth from the place where dead body of Muhammad Shahid was lying vide memo. Exh.P.E. He also received last‑worn clothes of Irfan which were stained with blood vide memo. Exh.P.B. and last‑worn clothes of Muhammad Shahid were also taken into possession through memo. Exh.P.C. by him. He also prepared inquest reports Exh.P.U. and Exh. P. V. in respect of Shahid and Irfan respectively. Photographs of all the injured were taken by the Investigating Officer. The challan of the case against the appellants/accused after investigation was prepared by the local police and the same was submitted for trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 27 witnesses including Investigating Officer, eye witnesses, Doctor and other relevant persons. After tendering in evidence. reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.T. Exh.P.U. and those of Serologist Exh.P.V. and Exh.P.W. learned D.A./S.P.P. closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, statements of all the appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submit that appellants are not named in the F.I.R. nor their descriptions were given in the F.I.R. No identification parade was held in this case, that although, there were 21 injured P.Ws. but 14 have appeared before the trial Court and none of them took the name of any appellant. Nobody even identified the appellants in the Court, that both the witnesses of extra‑judicial confession are Muhammad Ashraf P.W.24 and Muhammad Ishaque P.W.27. According to their statements the extra judicial confession was made by Iqbal and Iftikhar alias Khari accused before them separately on separate dates and except that there is not an iota of evidence to connect the appellants to the instant crime and that no reliance can be placed on these witnesses for maintaining the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants.

6. On the other hand learned State Counsel submits that except extra‑judicial confession there is no other evidence on record. He has half heartedly supported the judgment of the trial Court.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record available on the record. In the instant case occurrence had taken place on 10‑6‑1996 at 6‑10 p.m., matter was reported to the police by Muhammad Javaid P.W.16 on the same day at 6‑40 p.m. There were two deceased persons namely Irfan and Muhammad. Shahid and 21 injured P.Ws. but neither any accused was named in the F.I.R. nor description of any accused was given in the F.I.R. After the arrest of the accused no accused was put to the identification parade. Fourteen eye‑witnesses have appeared in the trial Court but in their statements they have not stated a single word against the appellants. They even did not identify the appellants before the trial Court. Appellants did not lead to the recovery of any incriminating article. The only incriminating evidence produced by the prosecution against the appellants was statement of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Ishaque P.W.24 and P.W.27 respectively who had stated that Iqbal accused had made extra‑judicial confession before Muhammad Ashraf while Iftikhar alias Khari accused had made confession before Muhammad Ishaque P.W. After the extra judicial confession was made before these two P. Ws. none of them apprehended the accused at the spot and even none of them informed the police on that very day about this fact. They did not even inform the police to get them arrested in the instant case. Their statements are not worthy of any credence Even this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court have held that extra‑judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence. In this regard we would like to mention here the 13 headnote "A" of a judgment from the Honourable Supreme Court i.e. 1996 SCMR 188 titled as Sarfraz Khan v. The State and 2 others which is reproduced below:‑‑ "‑‑‑‑Art. 37‑‑‑Confession‑‑‑Extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence .which can easily be procured whenever direct evidence of the crime is not available and the Courts, therefore, while placing reliance on it have emphasized the use of utmost care and caution. " Similarly headnote "A" of Gul Muhammad ,v. The State PLD 1958 (W.P.) Kar. 133 is also reproduced below:‑‑ "Confession‑‑‑ Extra‑judicial ‑‑‑ At best a weak piece of evidence‑‑‑Must create belief that it was made and was true; before it could be made sole basis of conviction." Then there is headnote "H" of PLD 1994 Pesh. 102 titled as Muhammad Riaz and 3 others v. The State. The same is also reproduced below:‑‑ S. 164‑‑‑Confession implicating other accused‑‑‑ Confessional statement alone cannot from sole basis for conviction of other co accused, moreso when the same is tainted with doubt as to its voluntary nature and veracity of other details mentioned therein." Even in headnote "C" of 1992 SCMR 398 titled as Khubaib Ahmad v. The State same is given as under:‑‑ "(c) Confession‑‑‑In a case punishable with death as Qisas extra‑judicial confession, held was no evidence." The abovesaid judgments would show that extra‑judicial confession had always been treated as very weak type of evidence and when there is no other evidence like last‑seen, recovery of the dead body on the pointation of the appellants, recovery of any incriminating article on the pointation of the appellants which are lacking in the instant case, case of the prosecution fails miserably.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellants. In this view of the matter, the appeals filed by the appellants are accepted and convictions and sentences awarded to them are set aside. Murder Reference is replied in the negative. The appellants are behind the bars. They are ordered to be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. Death sentence is not confirmed. Appeals accepted. H.B.T./M‑1252/L