Extra-judicial confession

Extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and the same obviously needed impartial and strong corroboration from other independent sources.

Extra-judicial confession is always considered a weak type of evidence and could be procured at any time during the investigation when there is no direct evidence available to the prosecution

Moreover, the legal worth of the extra-judicial confession too is almost equal to naught, keeping in view the natural course of events, human behaviors, conduct and probabilities, in ordinary course

Extra-judicial confession has never been considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it is strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source.

Extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and it can be procured at any time during the investigation when there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution

Moreover, the legal worth of the extra-judicial confession is almost equal to zero, keeping in view the natural course of events, human behaviour, conduct, and probabilities in the ordinary course.

Prosecution witness while appearing in witness box stated that the appellant confessed his guilt before his brother that he had committed the murder of son of the complainant and thrown his dead body in a jungle, but it was noteworthy that as per prosecution case, the cause of death in the case could not be determined due to advance stage of decomposition of dead body

As per prosecution, the skeleton of dead body was examined by a doctor, but for reasons best known by the prosecution, his statement was not recorded during trial, which could show the cause of death of deceased

In such circumstances, the extra-judicial confession had to be taken with a pinch of sale

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

However, the evidence of extra judicial confession is always regarded as weak in nature and is generally fabricated in cases where requisite incriminating evidence is lacking

For this good reason, the evidence of extra judicial confession is not considered sufficient for awarding conviction

Court was aware of the fact that the whereabouts of minor were still unknown and he was still missing but since the Courts were creation of law, hence, had to decide the fate of cases in accordance with available evidence and not being driven through sentiments and emotions

No doubt conviction could be awarded to an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence but if the incriminating circumstances are knitted with each other, then failure of one link destroys the entire chain

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession is always considered a weak type of evidence and it is procured at any time during the investigation when there is no direct evidence available to the prosecution

Moreover, the legal worth of extra-judicial confession is almost equal to naught, keeping in view the natural course of events, human behaviours, conduct and probabilities, in ordinary course.

On confession of the appellants-accused about the murder committed by them the immediate reaction of witness would have been to catch hold of accused and produce them before police or at least inform the complainant soon after the alleged confession

Failure to do so created doubts about the alleged confession about the guilt of the accused-appellants

Inaction and the absence of immediate reaction on the part of witness led to the opinion that the accused persons had not confessed before him about the murder, and that's why he did not report the matter to the complainant

No reason was there for the accused-appellants to confess their guilt before the said witness

Evidence of extrajudicial confession had no value in the eyes of the law

Moreover, the way the accused allegedly made the extrajudicial confession was not believable

Evidence appeared to have been made by the prosecution

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) [as amended by the Control of Narcotic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2022], S. 9(1)(3)(b)

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.38 & 39

Possession of narcotic substance

Pre-arrest bail, grant of

Confession of co-accused before police

Implication of accused/applicant on the statement of co-accused

Extra-judicial confession

Scope

Confession of co-accused cannot be made basis for maintaining conviction against any individual and the statement so made by co-accused before police is in violation of Arts. 38 and 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Appellants had been shown arrested on 09.12.2017 on the pointation of complainant and during interrogation they confessed the commission of offence before police in presence of complainant and his friend on 14.12.2017

Question arose as to why the appellants made admission when there was no palpable reason for them to make an extra-judicial confession before police in presence of complainant and his friend, whose conduct was also a relevant factor for determining credibility of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellants

Complainant was not an eye-witness of the incident but he nominated the appellants as killers of his sister in his FIR recorded on 09.12.2017, whereas as per prosecution case itself the appellants admitted the commission of offence before him on 14.12.2017

Question arose as to from which source complainant came to know that his sister was murdered by her in-laws and no explanation to that extent had been brought on record

Extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence

When an accused makes an admission before police about his guilt then it is obligatory upon the Police Officer before whom he made such a confession to produce him before a competent Court of law for recording his statement under S.164, Cr.P.C., which had not been done, therefore, the alleged confessions of appellants would amount to confessions before police

Record was silent as to what were the circumstances which made the appellants confess

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Prosecution witness allegedly in whose presence extra-judicial confession was made recorded his Court statement but he did not utter any word that accused persons made any extra-judicial confession in his presence rather deposed that one of the accused persons told him through telephonic call that he did not murder the deceased rather some girls murdered him

Said witness further deposed in his Court statement that the accused confessed his offence in his presence at Police Station, thus any confession in custody of police was of no legal value

Court below had rightly observed that extra-judicial confession could not be made basis for recording conviction unless it was strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from an unimpeachable source because extra-judicial confession was a weak piece of evidence

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

From perusal of cross-examination of the said witnesses, it was revealed that their statements had not been shattered by defence, rather the defence had failed to cross-examine the said witnesses about their presence at the place of occurrence, meaning thereby the statements of said witnesses to that extent had gone unchallenged

Said witnesses were natural witnesses and they had faithfully deposed what they had seen and heard from the accused at the time of occurrence, thus their statements were reliable and confidence inspiring

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the sentence was reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Extra-judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence and it can only be taken into consideration if, firstly it rings true and then finds support from other strong and tangible evidence of unimpeachable character.

It was not understandable that what compelled the accused and why she allegedly confessed the crime, particularly before the persons, who being closely related to the deceased were expected to cause her more harm than good and they immediately became witnesses against her

Said aspect raised doubt about genuineness of such piece of evidence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra judicial confession of the accused was recorded on 10th July 2020, while on the fourth day of such disclosures his confessional statement was recorded on 13th July 2020

Now question arose that if the accused recorded his disclosures on 10th July 2020 then as to why he was not produced on the said date before the concerned Judicial Magistrate for recording his confessional statement

In order to eliminate any sort of doubt the Investigating Officer ought to have got recorded such confessional statement on the said date, but it was not done so

Even otherwise, both the disclosure and confessional statement did not corroborate any other piece of evidence

Hence, the element of accused being tortured during investigation could not be ruled out of consideration

Thus, both the confessional and the extra judicial confessional statements of the accused were also not helpful to the case of prosecution, because the same were not corroborating any other piece of evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Moreover, it was not borne out from the record that both the witnesses were influential persons or elders of the complainant party, hence, in absence of any such characteristics, the approaching of the accused to said witnesses seeking forgiveness from the complainant party was not appealable to man of prudent mind

Had the accused actually approached the witnesses, then why they did not produce him before complainant or at least before real brother of the complainant, whose house was adjacent to residence of one of the alleged witnesses

Both the said witnesses candidly admitted during cross-examination that they did not make any effort to apprehend the accused at that time

Moreover, Investigating Officer during cross-examination deposed that prior to 20.04.2016 both the said witnesses did not join the investigation, which led to an inference that such evidence was fabricated at a belated stage and could not be relied upon to sustain the conviction of accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Prosecution case was that accused allegedly kidnapped the minor son of complainant, committed unnatural offence and then murdered him

Allegedly, accused made extra-judicial confession before complainant and a witness

Notably, the accused was not nominated in the FIR and he had been implicated in the case through the supplementary statement of the complainant

Occurrence in the case took place on 26.09.2015 and the FIR was lodged on 27.09.2015, whereas, the supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 30.03.2016 i.e., after about six months from the occurrence and the registration of the FIR

In the supplementary statement, complainant and a witness stated that on 30.03.2016, accused appeared before them and the given up witness, when they were present outside the house of the complainant and he made extra-judicial confession before them by stating that he had a burden on his mind therefore, he wanted to tell the occurrence to the complainant party

Accused further stated before the witnesses that minor deceased came to his shop for taking toffees and he took the minor inside the house, where he committed sodomy with him and killed him by strangulating his neck

Accused further stated that after committing the murder of minor, he packed his dead body in a sack and after loading the said body on his bicycle, he threw the same in a drain

As per Forensic Science Agency Report, no seminal material was detected on the anal swabs of the deceased to support the prosecution case

Moreover, there were contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses of extra-judicial confession because one of the witnesses had stated that the accused allegedly confessed that after pressing the throat of minor, he dipped him in a water tub due to which he died but such fact was not stated by complainant

Complainant party comprised of three male adult members/witnesses and according to the evidence of said prosecution witnesses, the accused made extra-judicial confession regarding the murder of their kith and kin after about six months of the occurrence but they did not try to apprehend the accused at the time of making of his extra-judicial confession so as to hand him over to the police

No reason existed for the accused to make extra-judicial confession before the said witnesses

According to the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused before the said prosecution witnesses, dead body of minor deceased was packed in a sack after his murder and thereafter, the same was thrown in a drain but according to the statement of Official Witnesses dead body was not packed in the sack and the same was lying open in the drain

No sack had been recovered in the case

Although according to the evidence of the prosecution, dead body of the deceased was thrown by the accused in a drain but Medical Officer did not mention in his evidence the presence of any mud or particles of drain on the body of the deceased

Thus, the prosecution evidence qua extra-judicial confession of the accused was not worthy of reliance

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Extra-judicial confession was a weak type of evidence.

One witness, deposed that he along with other witness was sitting at his house, accused came there and started weeping and said that he had to pay some amount to deceased, who was demanding amount in lump-sum but he could not pay him the full amount, therefore, firstly, he tied up the hands of deceased with a rope and then after cutting the tied rope with a Chhuri threw him down from the top of the building

After throwing, deceased stuck with a Chappar

Accused took a bamboo and pushed deceased from the said Chappar down to the ground resulting into his death

Similarly, other witness narrated the same facts as deposed by the witness

Deposition of the said witnesses of extra-judicial confession when examined revealed that firstly the place chosen by the accused for such purpose was not at all suitable; secondly, why the accused had made extra-judicial confession before such persons who having some authority was expected to do him more harm than good

Both the said witnesses were nephews of deceased

One witness had described in his cross-examination that they did not try to apprehend accused nor raised any hue and cry, and stated that they were frightened

Same was the reply of other witness

According to the prosecution story when accused made extra-judicial confession before the said witnesses, he was empty handed then what was the reasoning, they could not have overpowered him

Such facts certainly raised serious doubt about the veracity of the witnesses and their testimonies were not upto the mark to place any reliance upon it

Evidence of extra-judicial confession made by accused regarding the incident was fabricated in order to create some circumstantial evidence in that un-witnessed incident

Such extra-judicial confession did not bear any credibility and could not be permitted to render any sort of help to the case of the prosecution

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aide convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine a person, causing disappearance of evidence

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Extra-judicial confession

Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after kidnapping him

Allegedly, extra-judicial confession was made by the accused before the complainant

When the judicial confession of accused was already penned down by Judicial Magistrate then the accused had no need to confess his guilt before anyone, particularly before complainant at a later stage

According to the statement of complainant, Mr. "M" was also present during her first meeting in jail with the accused but during trial said Mr. "M" was examined as a witness on the application of accused and in his statement, he totally negated the stance of complainant by stating that the complainant party earlier had a suspicion that father of deceased was behind his disappearance

After the meeting, they decided to trace out the victim from Madrissas etc. and from his father

Complainant at that time felt satisfied from the accused

Even otherwise, Investigating Officer during his cross-examination stated that complainant, her mother and sister did not nominate any person as an accused in their statements before him

Investigating Officer further stated that the said ladies also did not show any suspicion against any person

No motive was also asserted by the said ladies before the Investigating Officer

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Accused was charged for committing rape with the minor daughter of the complainant and then murdering her by strangulation

Record showed that two prosecution witnesses deposed that allegedly three accused persons made extra-judicial confession

One of the witnesses of extra-judicial confession deposed that on 13.5.2010 he was present at his Dera with other witness when the said accused approached them and took them aside and separately requested for their help to seek pardon from the complainant

First of all allegedly Mr. "M" admitted that Mr. "H" and Mr. "J" raped deceased girl and then killed her because they feared police would arrest them

Said accused offered to give the hand of his daughter to the son of the complainant

After him Mr. "H" and Mr. "J" individually made alleged confessions about their guilt and added that they had committed the offence on the abetment of Mr. "I"

Other witness deposed on the same line

Said witnesses were the real brothers of complainant

Prosecution had not brought any material on the record to show that Mr. "H", Mr. "J" or Mr. "M" had any reason to make confession before them

More importantly, the witnesses claimed that when the accused came to their Dera they were alone and were not accompanied by any respectable of the locality or a common friend

Keeping in view the gravity of the charge it was not possible for them to approach the said witnesses directly particularly when the occurrence was fresh and tempers were high

In their cross-examination said witnesses stated that 8/9 of their relatives were present outside the Dera

Intriguingly, said persons did not react on seeing them, even their own conduct was unnatural

In such state of affairs, prosecution evidence of extra-judicial confession was not reliable

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession must be received with utmost caution for the reason that it could be procured effortlessly and could be easily concocted.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Extra-judicial confession

Inconsequen-tial

Accused were charged for abducting the son of the complainant with the intention to kill him

Two prosecution witnesses deposed in that regard by stating that at evening time in the house of one of the said witnesses, the accused persons approached them and confessed their guilt by stating that they had murdered the son of complainant and then his dead body had been thrown in a canal and also begged pardon

On going through the testimony of one of the said witnesses, it was noticed that said witness had never got his statement recorded in terms of S. 161, Cr.P.C., before the police in that regard

Other witness had admitted during the course of cross-examination that both the accused persons had jointly confessed their guilt

Meaning thereby that such piece of evidence (extra judicial confession) hardly advanced the case of the prosecution as one of the witnesses had never recorded his Statement 161, Cr.P.C., whereas second witness admitted that both the accused persons had jointly confessed their guilt

Evidence of extra-judicial confession being very week type of evidence was not worthy of credit

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that the witnesses of extra judicial confession had stated in their statements recorded by the Trial Court that the accused came to them for extra judicial confession on 12.5.2017 but no time or place of making the alleged extra judicial confession by the accused had been mentioned by both the said witnesses

Although according to the statement of said prosecution witnesses, the accused made extra judicial confession before them on 12.5.2017 but according to the statement of one of the witnesses, the said witness made statement before the police under S. 161, Cr.P.C. after 18 days from making the alleged extra judicial confession by the accused, whereas, other witness stated that he never got recorded his statement to the Investigating Officer

Although, both the said witnesses of extra-judicial confession claimed that the accused made extra-judicial confession before them regarding the commission of a heinous offence about the murder of a minor girl of four years but they did not try to apprehend the accused who was alone at the relevant time, whereas the witnesses were two in number

Conduct of the said witnesses was highly unnatural

Both the said witnesses were not enjoying any status of authority in the society which could have prompted the accused to make extra-judicial confession before them

Said witnesses were not in a position to pardon the accused from the complainant

Evidence of said witnesses was not worthy of reliance

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person otherwise than on grave provocation, acts of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Extra-judicial confession

Scope

Accused was charged for throwing acid at the face of daughter of the complainant, due to which the face, right eye and other parts of her body were burnt and she died

Accused made extra-judicial confession before a journalist

Said journalist was the independent witness, having no enmity with the accused and the extra-judicial confession recorded by him was true and voluntary

Said witness during cross-examination replied that when he was recording the statement in camera of the accused in the lockup, there was no Police Official available in the lockup and further stated that accused was not under harassment as he observed

Likewise Superintendent of Police (Investigation) stated that at the time of recording the statement of the accused he got removed his handcuff and turned out the other police staff from his office then made inquiry from accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.

Qatl-i-amd, Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security, etc., unnatural offence, common intention, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Extra-judicial confession

Scope

Accused were charged for abducting the minor son of complainant for ransom but subsequently he was murdered

Record showed that two accused persons, during interrogation, had given an extra-judicial confession before the police regarding their involvement and then proceeded to lead the police to the place where the deceased had been kidnapped from and then the sewer where the dead body was recovered from

Investigating Officer deposed that he did not get the accused/ appellants' confessional statements recorded before a Judicial Magistrate even after their extra-judicial confession which again was another surprising aspect of the case

In the presence of a judicial confession recorded as per the guidelines, the case of the prosecution would invariably have been stronger

Confession before the police was of no evidential value

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Extra-Judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and court to rely on the same would expect sufficient and reliable corroboration.

Extra-judicial confession could be made sole basis for conviction of an accused, if the court believed that it was true and voluntary and was not obtained by torture or coercion or inducement.

Trial Court had relied upon the alleged extra-judicial confession of the accused but the record showed that he had not confessed his guilt rather the same was the statement before police which had no evidentiary value under Art. 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and the same obviously needs impartial/strong corroboration from other independent sources.

Prosecution had examined two witnesses to prove the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused in the case who got recorded their statements and stated that at about 7.00 p.m. the accused and his co-accused (since acquitted) came to the shop of one of the witnesses and confessed to have murdered the deceased

Both the witnesses told the said fact to the complainant of the FIR

Question arose as to why the accused would make his breast clean when apparently he was under no compulsion to oblige the prosecution which was clueless about the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased

Alleged extra-judicial confession was so detailed and comprehensive that it covered almost every aspect of the prosecution case

Man under the stress of compunction of his conscious was not supposed to give such minute details that too on the assurance of help

Witnesses deposed that accused and his co-accused (since acquitted) requested them to arrange pardon for them from the legal heirs of the deceased

Admittedly, both the witnesses of extra-judicial confession admitted in their cross-examination that they did not possess any influential portfolio at that time to have any influence to beg pardon for the accused from the complainant

Said witnesses also admitted in their cross-examination that they did not try to apprehend the accused at the time of making the said extra-judicial confession in spite of the fact that he was allegedly present in their company of his own volition, in a shop

Both the said witnesses were so naive that they let the accused leave the shop without making any effort to apprehend him or his co-accused

Deceased happened to be related to both the witnesses but they did not react at all to the confessional statements of the accused and his co-accused and calmly saw them leaving, without even moving an inch

Said witnesses had not mentioned in their statements that the accused had some weapon when they visited them to confess their guilt about the murder of deceased which could have precluded the said witnesses from apprehending the accused and his co-accused

Said conduct of witnesses was not natural in circumstances

Such peculiar facts spoke volumes regarding the lack of veracity in the statements adduced by witnesses and also shown their unusual behaviour and the same was otherwise contrary to the normal human behaviour

Another reason to reject the statements of said witnesses was that according to those witnesses, after the alleged confession of the accused and his co-accused, they both told the said fact to the complainant of the case on the same day

Witness during cross-examination stated that they told the fact of the confession of the accused before them to complainant of the FIR, within one hour of making of the same

However, the statement of complainant of the FIR found no mention in his statement that both the said witnesses ever told him regarding the said confession of the accused

Overwhelming analysis of the prosecution evidence with regard to extra-judicial confession, it had been concluded that the prosecution had manufactured the said extra-judicial confession in the case to strengthen the case against the accused after taking legal advice in that regard

High Court observed that story introduced by two witnesses about the extra-judicial confession of the accused seemed improbable

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Extra-judicial confession had never been considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it was strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security etc., rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Extra-judicial confession

Accused were charged for kidnapping the son of complainant for extorting money, but committing his murder

Witness had stated that the accused confessed his guilt about the commission of crime

No occasion or reason for the accused to make such confession before that witness because he was a cultivator by profession and did not enjoy any social status/authority prompting the accused to make such a confession before him

Present was not the case of that witness before the Trial Court that they along with his son tried to apprehend the accused at the time of his extra-judicial confession, who was not armed with any weapon

Even otherwise, said witness neither informed the police nor anybody else

Evidence of extra-judicial confession was not worthy of reliance

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Record showed that whole prosecution story against the accused rested upon the alleged disclosure by the father of accused before the complainant and prosecution witnesses that his son committed the occurrence in question with the help of other co-accused

Although prosecution side had termed it as extra-judicial confession on behalf of accused but that alleged information rendered by father of accused could not be termed as extra-judicial confession because confession or extra-judicial confession as the case might be was always made by the accused himself and not by any other person on his behalf

Statements of prosecution witnesses were not corroborating each other's stance regarding alleged information given by father of accused

Complainant in his statement stated that he along with two other persons were sitting near their Drawing Room (Baithak), when father of accused, came their and admitted that his son along with co-accused committed that occurrence and beseeched to pardon him and also promised to pay compensation to the legal heirs of deceased

Other witness had not stated that complainant was also present with him because in his statement he had stated that he along with other was sitting near his Drawing Room (Baithak) when father of accused came there

Said sole fact had shattered the credibility of whole episode allegedly occurred regarding disclosure of father of accused and was sufficient to belie the story of prosecution regarding involvement of accused

Said fact was also nullified from the fact that in his statement the witness categorically stated that when he along with other was sitting near his Drawing Room (Baithak), grandfather of co-accused came there and told him that the occurrence was committed by his grandson along with co-accused

Said witnesses did not report the matter to the local police or complainant, waited for more than a year and it was only after the disclosure of father of accused he was nominated in the occurrence

All the said facts and circumstances, material discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses regarding alleged disclosure of guilt of accused and his co-accused by their family members and nomination of accused in the case seemed highly sceptical

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession under the recognized principles is the weakest type of evidence and no conviction can be recorded on the basis thereof.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Extra-judicial confession

Scope

Accused were charged for abducting brother of complainant with an intention of his qatl-i-amd and after his murder, accused persons had screened the dead body

Official witness asserted that accused persons came to him and made the confession turn by turn

On confrontation from his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C and cursory declaration he had been found under improvement when he added that accused and his co-accused made confession turn by turn, in his earlier statements it appeared to be joint extra judicial confession which had no evidentiary value

Conduct of said witness was highly objectionable for the reason that if he got the important information, why he did not appear before the police on the same day and why he came forward for his statement under S.161 Cr.P.C

Delayed statement of an important witness without offering any explanation was not reliable

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Extra-judicial confession had never been considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it was strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abduction in order to murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Extra-judicial confession

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant after kidnapping him

Prosecution alleged that at about digar vela the accused persons and their co-accused allegedly made their extrajudicial confession before two witnesses

Said piece of evidence was of no availto the prosecution because it was not understandable as to why the accused persons and their co-accused made extra judicial confession before the said witnesses despite the fact that they were not influential persons

Moreover, it did not appeal to a prudent mind as to what prompted the accused persons to confess their guilt before the said witnesses because at that time, there was no evidence against the accused persons regarding their involvement in the crime

Circumstances established that the prosecution could not prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused were acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

If it was so then how was it possible for said witness to spare both the accused persons who made confession and why he made no effort to apprehend any of them

Although said witness maintained that he tried to apprehend the accused and call the police but the accused persons escaped

Said version of the witness was completely negated when it was found that he made his statement to the Investigating Officer first time after two days of the alleged confession

As evident from the examination-in-chief of said witness, he and another person informed the legal heirs of deceased but the statement of witnesses showed that they never claimed so

Said witness did not appear to be a truthful and reliable witness for the reason that on one hand he maintained that he was close relative of deceased and witnesses and at the same time he responded that he was not having the knowledge about the murder of deceased as he was not told in that context

Said witness further stated that he did not participate in the funeral of deceased

Said witness maintained that after furnishing information to witness to last seen he got his statement recorded to the police on the day of confession

Investigating Officer in cross-examination without any ambiguity maintained that when three witnesses joined the investigation of the case they got their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C

Evidence of extra-judicial confession relied by prosecution was under heavy clouds of doubts so could not be relied upon

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused persons

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession of an accused was a weak type of evidence which could not be relied upon in absence of independent corroborative piece of evidence.

Two prosecution witnesses stated in their statements that after 5/6 days of 12 Rabi ul Awal of last year at about 10:00 a.m., they were present at their Dairy Farm, meanwhile accused came there and made confession regarding the present occurrence

Said witnesses did not state that accused was armed with any weapon at the time of making extra-judicial confession but he was not apprehended at that time

Extra-judicial confession was a weak type of evidence which could be procured at any time during the investigation whenever direct evidence was not available to prosecution

High Court observed that said story was not believable

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Complainant alleged that the deceased went missing and his whereabouts could not be traced but later on he came to know that accused persons had abducted the deceased, on being approached they admitted their guilt and promised to return the deceased

Accused persons during their arrest admitted their guilt and stated that they had killed and buried the deceased; on their pointation incriminating articles were recovered and body of deceased was exhumed

Complainant had lodged the report of incident after two months and three days

Complainant admitted that deceased had informed his wife and mother regarding meeting with the accused persons on the day of his abduction

Mother and wife of deceased were not examined

Medical Board, who conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased, concluded that soft tissues were obsolete/destroyed due to advanced stage of de-composition and hard tissues (bones) did not reveal any external mark of violence leading to fracture

Toxicology examination revealed that no poison was detected from the body of deceased

Extra-judicial confession of the accused persons was inadmissible as per Art. 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons without reasonable doubt

Appeals were allowed, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession even before police or before a prosecution witnesses is a very weak type of evidence, and if the same having allegedly been made before co-accused.

Although an extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, conviction cannot be solely made on its basis but when such a confession is in conformity with the statements of other witnesses and the dead body is found on the basis of such confession then it cannot be simply ignored.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Sentence, reduction in

Extra-judicial confession

Scope

Accused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant

Accused was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 21.01.2009

As per the 1nvestigating Officer's testimony, during interrogation, accused disclosed that he along with co-accused had murdered the deceased and threw his body in a well after placing it in a gunny bag

Deceased's body was recovered on 21.01.2009 on the pointation of accused

On 22.01.2009, the Investigating Officer arrested co-accused persons

Testimony of the Investigating Officer as to the confession and disclosures made by accused was corroborated by the witness, who had informed the police about address of accused

Said witness deposed inter alia that accused was arrested on 21.01.2009 in his presence and that the disclosure as to the occurrence and the place where the deceased's body was thrown had also been made by the accused in his presence

Said witness was one of the persons who went down the well to recover the deceased's body on the pointation of accused

Gunny bag containing the deceased's body was opened by the police in the presence of said witness

Said witness also signed the memo of recovery with respect to the gunny bag, the three cords and the left shoe recovered from the place of the occurrence

Disclosure made by accused on 21.01.2009 as to the deceased's murder by the three accused and the place where his body was thrown was indisputably an extra judicial confession

Not disputed that the confession made by accused was whilst he was in police custody

Article 37 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, provided that a confession made by an accused person was irrelevant in a criminal proceeding, if the making of the confession appeared to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him

Circumstances established that the present case did not present special features warranting interference in the convictions of the accused persons, however, judicial confession made by the accused persons could not be relied upon, thus, the sentence of accused was reduced from imprisonment for life to the term already undergone/served by them

Appeal was partly allowed.

Witness of extra judicial confession, a close relative of the complainant, stated that he was present along with another witness on Railway station, when at about 10/10.15 am, both the accused individually confessed their guilt before them

Said witness was interested witness and could not be relied upon

Alleged extra judicial confession made by the accused before the said witness was of no avail to the prosecution, as the evidence of extra judicial confession was a weak type of evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession was to be received with utmost caution because it could be effortlessly procured and easily concocted.

Although the incident was unseen yet the accused was nominated by the complainant on the basis of statements made by two persons who had seen the deceased with the accused on the date of occurrence

Police had recorded statements of two witnesses who had stated that the accused had admitted his guilt before them

Pistol was recovered from the possession of accused and the same had matched with the empties secured from the place of occurrence

Offence alleged against the accused came within the purview of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Accused was found guilty during investigation conducted by the police

Sufficient incriminating material was available on record connecting the accused with the commission of offence

Grounds urged by the accused required deeper appreciation of evidence which could not be taken into consideration at bail stage

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Said witnesses further stated that the accused informed them that he had committed the murder of deceased and thereafter he went away

Said witnesses did not bother to inform about the incident to any family member of the deceased rather they went to the house of deceased on the following morning

Said witnesses did not even join the investigation

Accused requested that they should arrange paradon for him from the complainant party, but they also did not inform the matter to the police or the complainant party and did not even try to capture the accused rather left the place to their house while the accused remained there

Statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer on the next day of the alleged extrajudicial confession, which raised serious doubt about their credibility

Accused had no occasion to confess his guilt before said witnesses, who, being unconcerned persons and related to the complainant, were expected to do him more harm than the good

Not acceptable to a prudent mind that the accused would make confession before any person, who had no authority or influence so as to hold out any hope of pardon for him and thereby tempt him to make any confession

No answer to the said questions was found nor any other justification for believing them

Extrajudicial confession of the accused when examined in such prospective neither rang true nor agreed with truth or fit in with the circumstances of the case

No implicit reliance could be placed on the evidence of extrajudicial confession

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abettor present at the time of offence, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, possessing explosives, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Extra-judicial confession

Scope

Accused were charged for conspiring to murder a candidate in the elections for the seat of the Member of National Assembly and being complicit in the suicide blast resulting in the deaths of as many as seven persons and injuries to forty seven persons

Prosecution had produced a witness to prove that accused confessed the offence before him

Said witness stated that he met the accused per chance and the said accused confessed their guilt during the said chance encounter

Said narrative of witness was not believable

No reason had been mentioned by witness as to why the accused would have confessed their guilt before him when neither he was a confidant of theirs nor a person of any importance having the capacity to procure any benefit for the said confessing accused

Said witness admitted during cross-examination that neither he was a Nazim nor a Councillor nor a Chairman of any committee which could have persuaded the accused to have confessed their guilt being impressed by his position in the society

Said witness further stated during cross-examination that the whole conversation took place while standing on a road

Investigating Officer of the case, during cross-examination, admitted that said witness did not show him the place where he had the chance meeting with the accused and the place where the said accused confessed to their guilt

In that manner, the assertions of said witness with regard to the alleged confession of both the accused remained not proved

Witness admitted that he did not make any attempt to inform the police authority with regard to the said conversation or made any effort to get the confessing accused arrested

Question was as to why the accused would confess when apparently they were under no compulsion to oblige the prosecution which was clueless about the circumstances of the occurrence

Said peculiar facts spoke volumes regarding the lack of veracity in the statement adduced by witness and the prosecution failed to prove that witness could be believed despite his evidence narrating an unusual behavior on the part of the witness as well as the accused and the same was even otherwise contrary to the normal human behaviour

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.