Extra judicial confession

Petitioner No. 2 recorded his extra judicial confession by confessing his guilt and stated that he was married with petitioner No. 1 and were residing in a rented house at "H"; that since there was no labour work etc. thus he contacted petitioner No. 3, who was at "Q" who advised him for shifting to "Q"; that since out of their wedlock no child was born, thus they decided to abduct a child and thereafter shift to "Q" and ultimately they abducted the minor and shifted to "Q", where they also disclosed about the abduction of child to petitioner No. 3, whereafter the police came, recovered the child and arrested them

Police Official also confirmed that in his presence the petitioner No. 1 recorded her extra judicial confession by confessing her guilt of abduction of minor, bringing the child to "Q" and their arrest by the police and recovery of the minor from their possession

Comparison of extra judicial confession of petitioners confirmed that they recorded their statements in line with each other

Petitioners had failed to point out any misreading and non-reading of evidence and major contradiction in the statements of witnesses or any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments, warranting interference by the Court

Petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Judicial or extra judicial confession canbe made sole basis for conviction of an accused, if the Court is satisfied and believes that it is true and voluntary and is not obtained by torture or coercion or inducement.

Both the said witnesses while appearing the dock in the Court room unanimously stated that on 04.04.2016 upon hearing the news of death of deceased, they reached in the house of the appellant for obituary, when brother of the deceased/complainant told them that his sister was murdered by the appellant

At about 2.00 p.m. appellant invited them and one given up witness to a corner for telling them something and thereafter took them to the fields, where he confessed before them that he committed the murder of deceased by administering poisonous tablets and strangulating her and requested for managing pardon for him

Both the said witnesses were cross-examined but they remained firm and consistent on material points and the prosecution had failed to extract any favourable material from their mouths

Accused tried to give the murder a colour of natural death but when the legal heirs of the deceased decided to lodge the criminal case against him qua the murder of deceased, he in order to save his skin attempted to manage the situation

One of the witnesses belonged to Lamberdar family of village of the complainant and in rural set up no one could deny the influence of said family upon the villagers

Similarly, other witness was close family relative of the complainant, as such he was also a suitable person to use his influence for securing clean chit for the appellant, therefore, keeping in mind these factors the appellant made extra judicial confession before them

Moreso, both the witnesses were neutral persons having no direct relationship with the complainant and at the same time had no animosity or ill will against the appellant for falsely involving him in the charge of capital punishment

Even the appellant in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. did not question the neutrality of said witnesses or even a slight indication of their hostility towards him

Both the witnesses faced the test of cross-examination with confidence, therefore, their evidence being free from any bias deserved consideration

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond shadow of any doubt, however due to mitigating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Extra judicial confession made by any accused is inadmissible in evidence according to Arts. 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, specially before registration of FIR

Extra-judicial confession was a weakest type of evidence, unless there was a strong corroboration to it.

Record showed that the accused was arrested on the next day of the incident and while in police custody, anchor/media person/witness interviewed him and it was telecasted

Accused admitted his guilt

Media person was examined and he had also no reason to falsely implicate the accused in the case

Said media person was independent witness

CD prepared by the said witness was played in the court and trial court rightly believed it

Extra judicial confession made before news anchor/ media person in the present case also inspired confidence because media person had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the case

When evidence of media person was read in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence, it was found most reliable piece of evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Confession before the police was inadmissible in the eyes of the law.

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

Extra judicial confession could not be relied upon without any independent corroboration being weak type of evidence.

Witness of extra judicial confession had described that the accused came to them and apprised of the fact that he had slaughtered his wife and daughters as he intended to contract second marriage

Accused requested to resolve the matter amicably and by way of compromise

Accused was asked to stay there but he slipped away as witness went out on a pretext to ask the legal heirs of the deceased

Accused had made extra judicial confession after four days of the occurrence, before said witness who was not authoritative socially or officially

Said witness was neither a close confident nor friend having some common habits and that there was no convincing reason that the accused had gone onto the witness to ventilate his suffocating conscience

Witness had admitted that he informed the complainant party about the confession of the accused on the same very night

If it was so, why the complainant kept quiet and why the witnesses made no effort to apprehend/arrest the accused as he was alone and witness was sitting in his baithak along with other given up witness

Extra judicial confession was not helpful to the prosecution, in circumstances

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

No reliance could be placed on the evidence of extra judicial confession produced by the prosecution, which even otherwise was not corroborated by any other independent evidence.

Complainant had made supplementary statement on the basis of extra judicial confession of co-accused after a delay of eight months of the alleged incident

Statements of witnesses of extra judicial confession did not contain any manner of commission of offence

Nothing was available on record to show as to who had strangulated the deceased

Only a rassi was recovered from the possession of accused, which was not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis

Question of vicarious liability had to be determined at the time of trial

Except the statement of co-accused under S. 161, Cr.P.C., no evidence was collected by the Investigating Agency, which made the case of accused that of further inquiry under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Statement of co-accused recorded by police during investigation was inadmissible in evidence

Investigation of the case was complete

Accused was not required by the police for further investigation

Accused was behind the bars since his arrest without any progress in the trial

Fair and speedy trial was one of the fundamental rights of accused

No moral or legal compulsion existed to keep the accused behind the bars for an indefinite period, which amounted to punishment without trial

Petition for grant of bail was accepted, in circumstances.

Said witnesses got recorded their statements that on the day of incident the accused came to the house of witness and confessed to have murdered the deceased

One found it hard to understand 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

Occurrence had taken place in the year 2009 and already a period of more than two years and seven months had lapsed prior to the making of the said confession by the accused

Alleged extra judicial confession was so detailed and comprehensive that it covered almost every aspect of the prosecution case, which was in fact an encyclopaedia 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

Admittedly, both the said witnesses 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

Witnesses also admitted in their cross-examination that they did not try to apprehend the accused at the time of making extra-judicial confession in spite of the fact that he was allegedly present in their company all alone in a room

Both the witnesses stated that the accused promised to return after a week and they were so naive that they believed him and let him leave

Said peculiar fact spoke volumes of false statements adduced by witnesses and also showed their unnatural conduct and the same was otherwise contrary to the human behaviour

Accused had allegedly confessed his guilt before said witnesses however, the said fact was not reported to the complainant or to the Investigating Officer of the case till 11.05.2012

Had the accused confessed his guilt before the witnesses then it would have been natural for them to report the same to the complainant, who was their Mohallaydar

Failure of the prosecution witnesses to report the matter of the alleged confession of the accused was indicative of the fact that no such confession was ever made by the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and the same could not be relied upon unless it is corroborated by any independent evidence having its intrinsic worth and other circumstances of the case, which also fit in within the probability of the case.

Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of ten years, kidnapping or abduction for ransom, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Extra Judicial confession

Scope

Accused was charged for demanding ransom and murdering the son of complainant after kidnapping him

Prosecution had produced two witnesses to prove the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused

Record was silent 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, it was in fact an encyclopedia 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

Both said witnesses 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

Witnesses had admitted in their cross-examination that they did not try to apprehend the accused at the time of making extra-judicial confession in spite of the fact that he was allegedly present in their company all alone in a room

Said witnesses failed to explain as to how the accused was able to leave their company after allegedly committing his guilt especially when admittedly one witness had remained with the accused at the time when other witness had gone out of the room to call the complainant

Said peculiar fact spoke volumes of false statements adduced by witnesses and also showed their unnatural conduct and the same was otherwise contrary to the human behaviour

Accused disclosed the place of murder to the said witnesses, however, no effort was made to discover the remains of the deceased either by the said witnesses, or the complainant or indeed the Investigating Officer of the case

If the accused confessed his guilt before the witnesses then it would have been only natural for them to make efforts to recover the remains of the deceased

Failure of the prosecution witnesses in that matter was indicative of the fact that no such confession was ever made by the accused

Circumstances suggested that 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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Evidence of extra judicial confession is a fragile piece of evidence and great care and caution has to be exercised in placing reliance on such a confession

Such confession is always looked at with doubt and suspicion due to ease with which it may be concocted

Legal worth of extra judicial confession was almost equal to naught, keeping in view nature, course of events, human behaviour, conduct and probabilities in ordinary course

Extra judicial confession could be taken as corroborative of charge if it, in first instance, rang true and then found support from other evidence of unimpeachable character

If other evidence lacked such attribution it had to be excluded from consideration

For awarding conviction on basis of extra judicial confession threefold proofs are required i.e., firstly, it was in fact made; secondly, that it was voluntarily made; and thirdly, it was true

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

Extra judicial confession could be relied upon if it was supported by some unimpeachable corroborative evidence in order to bring home a conviction.

First Information Report was lodged at 1:30pm and difference of timings of place of occurrence by police office revealed that either investigation was conducted by police before lodging FIR or statements of eye-witnesses were incorrect

Confession by accused of his guilt under custody of police, which was not made in presence of Magistrate, in absence of any strong corroborative piece of evidence had no legal sanctity in eyes of law

No improbability, infirmity and perversity in the judgment of acquittal recorded by Trial Court existed

High Court declined to interfere in judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court as neither acquittal was arbitrary, capricious and fanciful and against record nor contrary to evidence brought on record which was based on sound and cogent reasons

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Extra judicial confession could not be considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless same was strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source.

Prosecution case was that accused persons allegedly kidnapped the minor daughter of complainant, committing rape and unnatural offence and then murdered her

Prosecution produced three witnesses including Investigating Officer of the case, in order to prove the extra-judicial confession

Material contradictions were found in the statements of said witnesses

Prosecution had failed to point out any misreading/non-reading of evidence on the part of Trial Court on that score

Prosecution witnesses improved their statements during the trial and did not corroborate each other on material aspects

Circumstances established that prosecution failed to prove the extra-judicial confession of the respondents in the case

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Extra judicial confession was a weak type of evidence requiring strong and independent corroboration to prove factum.

Trial Court convicted accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. for qatl-i-amd and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and also ordered her to pay compensation to legal heirs of deceased under S. 544-A, Cr.P.C.

Complainant also filed revision for enhancement of sentence of accused from life imprisonment to death

Validity

Examination of dead body, as per statement of medical witness, was conducted with delay of fourteen hours, which showed that occurrence had not taken place at the time mentioned in FIR

FIR had been registered after due deliberations and consultations

No one had, admittedly, seen accused administering intoxicant to deceased or suffocating him with pillow at time of alleged occurrence

Murder of complainant's son was unseen, and case had been registered against accused on mere apprehension of complainant that accused along with unknown persons had murdered his son

No said unknown persons could be produced to support prosecution story

Complainant, who lived thirty kilometers away from place of occurrence, could not give any reason for his presence along with his brother at place and time of occurrence

Complainant's assertion that accused having murdered his son (her husband), remained there right after committing murder, when complainant along with his brother was also present at place of occurrence, did not appeal to prudent mind

Accused was not arrested right after making extra-judicial confession

Accused was arrested after six days of alleged occurrence

Delay in effecting arrest of accused remained unexplained

Another woman was also alleged to have been present at the time of alleged occurrence, but neither she was joined in investigation nor was she produced before Trial Court, and her absence cast doubt in prosecution story

No occasion existed for accused to make extra-judicial confession which carried death penalty

Extra-judicial confession was weak type of evidence

Prosecution by producing evidence to prove extra-judicial confession had tried to improve its case and to entangle accused

Prosecution had presented its case through related, interested and chance witnesses, who all failed to justify truthfulness of their deposition during trial

As per statement of doctor, no mark of violence could be found on body of deceased

Intoxicant tablets recovered during investigation were not found to cause of death of deceased

Medical evidence could not establish that accused was done to death by suffocation

Medical evidence remained unable to establish any conclusive proof regarding cause of death of deceased, and the same could not provide support to prosecution's case

Recovery of intoxicant tablets and pillow allegedly used in commission of offence were effected after eight days of occurrence

Said recoveries made had no nexus with death of deceased, nor had the same provided corroboration to prosecution case

No motive could be brought on record to show as to why accused had killed her husband

Prosecution had failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt

High Court, extending benefit of doubt, acquitted the accused

Revision filed by complainant was dismissed and appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.

Extra-judicial confession was of weak type of evidence on the basis of which conviction on capital charge could not be recorded.

Extra judicial confession, was always considered a weak type of evidence.

Evidentiary value of extra judicial confession would depend upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it was made.

Accused was convicted by Trial Court on the basis of his extra judicial confession made before prosecution witness and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Evidence of extra judicial confession was not worthy of reliance

No motive was alleged in FIR and thereafter a vague motive was set up by complainant in supplementary statement to the effect that 4-5 days prior to occurrence, accused demanded Rs.20,000/- from complainant and his wife, which they refused and accused showed his anger on their refusal

Difference of loan amount differed, as in supplementary statement, complainant alleged Rs.20,000/- whereas before Trial Court loan amount was stated as Rs.2,5000/

No witness was produced before Trial Court in whose presence accused demanded loan amount, therefore, prosecution was not able to prove motive

High Court extended benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to him and he was acquitted of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Until and unless extra judicial confession is not corroborated by any other independent piece of evidence, no reliance can be placed on it coupled with the fact that joint extra judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.

Extra judicial confession was always considered to be a weak type of evidence, and conviction could not be awarded on the basis of such evidence, unless same was corroborated by a strong piece of evidence.

Only material the prosecution had against accused to connect him with commission of alleged offence was his extra judicial confession and recovery of pistol from his possession allegedly used in commission of murder of deceased

Empties recovered from the spot remained with police for about four years and ten months and were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after recovery of crime weapon / pistol from possession of accused

Effect

Possibility of recoveries being fake could not be ruled out in circumstances

Extra judicial confession of accused was not admissible under Arts. 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, and recovery of pistol from the possession of accused after four years and ten months of alleged occurrence was of very weak nature and required corroboration from a source of unimpeachable character

Case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry as envisaged in S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Extra judicial confession was not sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it was strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source.

Accused was alleged to have kidnapped the victim-girl, whereafter he committed zina-bil-jabr upon her and then killed her

Accused allegedly confessed before a witness that he had committed the crime and requested said witness for effecting compromise with the father of the victim

Trial Court awarded death sentence to accused, which was reduced to life imprisonment by the Federal Shariat Court

Validity

Witness before whom the alleged extra judicial confession was made in no uncertain words stated that he was not on good terms with the accused, therefore, if at all the accused was involved in the crime and was in need of help then, the said witness was not the appropriate person for such purpose

Said witness instead of taking a single step or making any effort towards the settlement/compromise or to help the accused, readily became a witness against him

Such conduct and attitude of said witness by itself was sufficient for discarding his testimony

Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court acquitted accused of all charges levelled against him and set aside his conviction and sentences

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Evidence of extra judicial confession, was a very weak type of evidence, which normally was created, when prosecution failed to collect any tangible evidence to prove the charge

Such type of evidence, should not be relied upon in absence of any corroborative piece of evidence.

Extra judicial confession of accused stood corroborated by further events leading up to recovery of dead body from his own house and confirmation of cause of death in the manner stated by him

Minor contradictions or mere delay alone in lodging of FIR were not helpful to accused to claim his acquittal

Each piece of circumstantial evidence fitted in another and made out a chain, which was sufficient to hold accused guilty of offence

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Some legal requirements of extra judicial confession, were; firstly, that extra judicial confession was in fact made; secondly, it was voluntarily made; thirdly, it was truly made; and fourthly, to prove the extra judicial confession, it had to be proved by the prosecution that there was a motivating force behind it because an accused could not be believed to open his mouth with regard to the performance of his criminal acts, unless and until there was a reason behind it

Accused could not be convicted solely on the basis of the extra judicial confession, unless it was supported by the corroborative piece of some independent reliable evidence.

Son of complainant went missing and ten days after one skeleton was found from bamboo crop which was alleged to be that of missing son and accused persons were sent to face trial for committing his murder

Trial Court convicted both the accused and awarded death sentence to one accused while the other was awarded imprisonment for life

Validity

On tenth day of missing of complainant's son, when a skeleton was found, it was believed by prosecution witnesses and complainant to that of missing boy's

In absence of any evidence with regard to attack of animals on dead body of deceased, it was not believable that dead body of human was completely decomposed within a period of ten days and converted into a complete skeleton

To prove offence of murder, death should be homicidal of which onus in criminal trial was on prosecution

In absence of legal proof of death being homicidal, because of serious lacuna of not obtaining report of Anatomy Expert to prove homicidal death, the benefit must go to accused and not to prosecution as the same sealed the fate of prosecution

Prosecution failed to prove with convincing evidence that a skeleton found on tenth day of missing of boy in bamboo crop was that of complainant's son

Even if it was believed that the skeleton was that of complainant's son, even then prosecution failed to establish homicidal death and it was beyond understanding as to how accused persons opened their breast by confessing murder before a person who was not previously known to them

Evidence with regard to extra judicial confession on the part of prosecution was result of padding by prosecution in order to add some colour in faded picture of prosecution

High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial Court and acquitted them of the charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.