Disclosure of accused

Evidentiary admissibility permitted under Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 must not be employed as a device to sidestep overarching protections enshrined in Articles 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and section 162, Cr.P.C.

Where a discovery is made on the basis of such disclosure, resultant recovery must be independently evaluated on the touchstone of credibility, reliability, and corroboration through forensic or circumstantial material

Limited admissibility under Article 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 does not, by itself, prove guilt but only allows a fact to be brought on record which might, when considered in conjunction with other evidence, contribute to the chain of circumstances

In order for provision of Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to be validly invoked, following essential elements must be satisfied:

Trial Court convicted both the accused persons and sentenced one to death while the other was given imprisonment for life

High Court reduced the sentence of accused from death to imprisonment for life whereas the other was acquitted of the charge

Validity

Allegation of sodomy lacked corroboration due to absence of DNA report or chemical examiner's findings, despite the claim of prosecution that anal swabs were submitted for testing

Critical DNA profiling and chemical report that could have supported the charge of unnatural lust were missing

Court could infer under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 that unproduced evidence would be unfavorable to the party withholding it and missing documents would not have supported prosecution's case

Motive was not established, the last seen evidence was unreliable, recoveries were doubtful and medical and forensic links were either suppressed or infirm

Chain of circumstantial evidence stood fractured

Where prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain was to be proved to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt

Failure to establish any one link was sufficient to vitiate the entire case

There were legal limitations of Article 40 Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and prosecution had failed to satisfy strict conditions for admissibility and reliability of custodial recoveries

Chain of circumstances necessary for conviction was not satisfactorily established

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and declined to interfere in acquittal of co-accused by the High Court.

If after disclosure new facts do not come on record, the same is not to be considered.

Except identification parade, pointation of place of occurrence by the accused and the disclosure by accused by themselves, no other tangible evidence was on record against them

Pointation of the wardat by the accused after the commission of the crime was of no relevance as the police already knew where the wardat took place

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.

Accused persons were alleged to have launched two terrorist attacks on a religious leader, in which many persons lost their lives due to suicidal bomb blast

No cogent evidence was available on record that the confessions were not made voluntarily i.e. by threat or inducement

Object of confessions was to tell the truth as it was to fit in with prosecution case and to corroborate other evidence on record

Though there were some irregularities in recording of confessions by Judicial Magistrate before whom the same were recorded but such irregularities had neither affected voluntariness nor truthfulness of the confessions

Such confessions were admissible and could form basis of convicting accused persons who made them

Accused persons were arrested together in the house of one accused where a huge quantity of Potassium used for making explosives (which quantity was too large to be foisted) and other explosive making equipment was recovered

Accused took police to suicide bomber's house which only he had known and not the police where a CD was recovered of a suicide bomber who was identified by his mother

Police recovered from accused a CD containing suicide bomber's death statement which fitted in with the confession of filming the suicide bomber

Attack was based on sectarian grounds and there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the same

Object, design and intention of conspiracy was to murder deceased and create fear, insecurity and terror amongst a specific sect, which the accused persons did

High Court maintained death sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial Court as the offence squarely fell within Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Prosecution case was that the accused and co-accused, six in number, entered into the house of complainant and looted five crore rupees cash, jewellery amounting to fifty/sixty lakhs

Record showed that the custody of accused was taken who was already in custody of another case

During investigation, the accused made disclosure and on his pointation, the Investigating Officer got recovered an amount of Rs. 28,50,000/-, one 9-MM pistol with live cartridges, one gold ring

Vehicle and commando uniform was also taken into possession from the house of the accused

Accused had given details of dacoity, his companions, purchase of body building articles, purchase of vehicle and same were recovered on his pointation

Record showed that the complainant, prima facie, had no motive to falsely involve the accused

Evidence tendered by prosecution qualified the term confidence inspiring to the extent of accused

Hence in absence of any possibility of false involvement such evidence was rightly believed by the Trial Court

Circumstances established that the conviction so recorded by the Trial Court was proper and well reasoned

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Discovery of any fact on the information of the accused in custody of police was admissible under Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

In order to apply Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, the prosecution must establish that information given by the accused led to the discovery of some fact deposed by him and the discovery must be of some fact which the police had not previously learnt from any other source.

If the facts narrated in the disclosure by accused were already known to the prosecution and no new fact was emerged pursuant to the said disclosure, even no incriminatory evidence or article was recovered pursuant to the said disclosure, such disclosure so recorded whilst in police custody would not be helpful to the case of prosecution.

Accused persons were alleged to have launched terrorist attacks on convoy of Armed Forces in which a senior Army Officer was moving

Attack by accused persons resulted in death of many persons

Defects in identification parade could be discarded especially as there was sufficient other independent corroborative evidence to show involvement of accused persons in the incident such as two judicial confessions which were placed on record and finger print evidence

Accused persons were correctly identified as per the role ascribed to them by eye-witnesses in their evidence

Police uniforms and explosive substances were recovered at the house of one of the accused who made Judicial confession

Such recovery was significant as police had no idea where the uniforms were and only accused could have known that those uniforms were used by them in their well-planned attack on Corps Commander and his convoy

Discarded police caps were also recovered from the scene of the incident where a number of accused persons according to confessional statements and eye-witnesses were also in police uniforms or else in civilian clothes but wearing police caps

Prosecution evidence fully supported and corroborated Judicial Confessions which again went to the truth of such confessions and showed that there was a clear plan and motive (as explained in Judicial confession) to attack Corps Commander's convoy and to murder Corps Commander on account of military operation which was being carried out in Northern Areas of Pakistan by Armed Forces

Object, purpose and design of attack was to create terror and cause fear and insecurity in the minds of general public which was in fact caused and the offences so charged fell squarely within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

High Court maintained death sentence awarded to accused persons by Trial Court as there were no mitigating circumstances

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, dishonestly receiving stolen property, cheating by personation, forgery for purpose of cheating, haraabah

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Disclosure of accused

Scope

Accused was charged for committing murder of the deceased by firearm after snatching his car

In the present case, the crime scene had already been visited by the police contingent including marginal witness as well as by the Investigating Officer, thus, pointation of the crime scene subsequent thereto by the convict-appellant and acquitted-respondent was not a discovery of fact within the meaning of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, inasmuch, as nothing had been discovered and recovered in consequence thereto.

If any incriminatory material related to the case was recovered or any fact was discovered in consequence of the information conveyed by the accused persons, the information so received would be admissible in evidence within the purview of Art. 40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Disclosure of accused relating to discovery of new facts or recovery of any incriminatory evidence, would be admissible under the provisions of Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Disclosure of accused during custody was inadmissible.

Disclosure coupled with discovery of new facts was admissible under Art. 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

If nothing in consequence of the disclosure was recovered or discovered then the information so received by itself would not be admissible.

Record showed that after the arrest of accused, he disclosed to the witnesses that deceased was blamed for wall chalking of their walls, written abusive words and deceased often had quarrel with his son; due to said reasons, he killed the deceased

After recording said disclosure, police on his pointation, recovered the crime weapon T.T. pistol along with two live cartridges from the house and beneath the bed of the accused, which were taken into possession

Such disclosure of the accused and recovery of crime weapon from his residential room connected the accused with the commission of offence.

Disclosure if followed by recovery of certain incriminating articles was admissible.