2012 PLP 575 (SCMR)
TARIQ IQBAL @ TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 575 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ |
| Parties | TARIQ IQBAL @ TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 575 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 575 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tariq Parvez and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 575 (SCMR) (TARIQ IQBAL @ TARIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ghufran Khursheed Imtiazi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 28th June, 2011.
- TARIQ PARVEZ, J.--- Short facts of the case are that on 16-10-2004, Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, Advocate, reported the crime of the murder of his wife Akhtar Bibi without charging any person but narrated in his report that some one has murdered his wife and has taken away cash amount, gold ornaments and other valuables.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment dated 26-10-2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Multan, in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2006 and Murder Reference No.143 of 2006).
Ss. 302/392
Constitution of Pakistan, Art 185(3)
Quantum of sentence, consideration of
Delay in recording confessional statement
Recovery of weapon and robbed articles while accused was in police custody for two weeks
Delay between extra judicial and judicial confession
Accused had been awarded death sentence by the Trial Court which, on appeal, was confirmed by the High Court
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider accused's quantum of sentence as his case was based on circumstantial evidence and such evidence had to be re-adjudged to consider three questions, firstly that whether death sentence awarded to accused was justified in view of delay of fifteen days between accused's arrest and his confessional statement; secondly, the question of alleged recovery of crime weapon and robbed articles after accused remained in police custody for two weeks, and, thirdly, the delay between accused's alleged extra judicial confession before witnesses and his judicial confession. Ahmed Raza Gaillani, Additional P.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ PARVEZ, J.
Short facts of the case are that on 16-10-2004, Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, Advocate, reported the crime of the murder of his wife Akhtar Bibi without charging any person but narrated in his report that some one has murdered his wife and has taken away cash amount, gold ornaments and other valuables.
2. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 3-11-2004, who was milk seller. It was the case of the prosecution that on 15-11-2004, petitioner led to the recovery of the crime weapon and also, on his pointation, the robbed articles were recovered from his house. On 18-11-2004, petitioner was alleged to have made judicial confession.
3. Learned trial Court on conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 26-1-2006, awarded death sentence which was confirmed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, vide impugned judgment dated 26-10-2011, hence instant petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel after arguing the case at some length opted not to press instant petition on merits but prayed for the grant of leave to appeal to the extent of quantum of sentence.
5. Petition is allowed and leave is granted to consider the quantum of sentence because this case is based on circumstantial evidence and death being irreversible sentence, out of abundant caution such circumstantial evidence has to be re-adjudged to determine as to whether:-- (i) In the given circumstances, sentence of death was called for because petitioner was arrested on 3-11-2004 whereas his confessional statement was recorded on 18-11-2004 with a delay of 15 days? (ii) Petitioner is alleged to have led to recovery of crime weapon and robbed articles on 15-11-2004, after he remained in the police custody for 2 weeks? (iii) There is also an allegation that petitioner made extra judicial confession before Falak Sher (P.W.21) and Muhammad Akram (P.W.22) on 23-10-2004. If a person has volunteered to make extra judicial confession then as to why his judicial confession was delayed until 18-11-2004? M.W.A./T-1/SC Leave to appeal allowed.