Extra-Judicial Confession

 ( Case Laws )

2008 SCMR 841. Mst. Irshad Bibi V/S Iftikhar & Others

S.302/364/34 PPC. Conviction order based on extra-judicial confession is well if prosecution succeeded in establishing that such statement had been made truly and voluntarily and same was corroborated by circumstantial evidence. Accused had categorically denied the allegation and extra-judicial confession before the prosecution witnesses, in absence of corroboration, was not acceptable. High Court after having taken into consideration material available on record in accordance with law had rightly concluded that the prosecution case was full of doubt and accused were rightly acquitted from the charge of murder. LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL REFUSED.

NLR 1995 CrLJ 192. Rizwan Ahmad V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/34 PPC. Accused who made extra-judicial confession before father and brother of deceased, would not be granted bail in a case U/S 302 as this evidence would be sufficient to connect him with murder. BAIL REFUSED

1995 PCrLJ 1802. Muhammad Ramzan Butt @ Luboo Butt. V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/460 PPC. Bail should not be withheld as a punishment in cases where extra-judicial confession which is the weakest type of evidence is not supported by any other independent evidence. BAIL GRANTED

1995 PCrLJ 1804. Sardar Ali V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession made by accused jointly is not admissible. BAIL GRANTED

NLR 1996 CrLJ 48. Muhammad Shahban etc. V/S The State (Karachi).

S.302/324/34 PPC. Case of accused who is charged on basis of his extra-judicial confession when there is no direct evidence to link with commission of offence, would be a case of further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED

1997 MLD 9. Ikhtiar V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/201 PPC. Accused was arrested on basis of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him with respect to murder of his step-mother before complainant and his companions, but companions of complainant had sworn in affidavits to the effect that accused did not make confessional statement before them. Solitary ingredient of extra-judicial confession of accused, even if taken into account in toto, was not enough to prove as a barrier against accused for his admission to bail. BAIL GRANTED

1997 MLD 1565. Shakeel Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302/379/411/34 PPC. Extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused was the only material available against him which was not corroborated by any other evidence. Some signs of injuries, according to the witnesses of extra-judicial confession, were apparent on both the hands of accused which could be a corroborative piece of evidence but the accused after his arrest was not got medically examined in this regard. No recovery of churri was effected at the instance of accused. Involvement of accused in the case, thus needed further inquiry. BAIL GRANTED

1997 MLD 2575. Nisar & Others V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Accused were not named in the FIR and none had seen the occurrence. Only evidence against accused was of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by them after three days of the occurrence before the close relatives of the deceased who informed police about the same after more than six months. BAIL GRANTED

2001 MLD 566.Talib Hussain V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/34 PPC. Blind murder – Benefit of doubt. Extra-judicial confession. Accused was arrested on the statement of prosecution witnesses wherein it was stated that the accused had made extra-judicial confession before them. Validity. Such confession, unless corroborated by some evidence, would be extremely insufficient to warrant conviction. Benefit of doubt was to be extended to accused even at bail stage. BAIL GRANTED

2001 PCrLJ 710. Muhammad Hassan & another V/S The State (Karachi).

S.302/34 PPC. Incident unwitnessed. Witnesses of extra-judicial confession had not disclosed to anybody about the same which itself was a weak evidence requiring strong independent corroboration which was yet to be brought on record by the prosecution. Said witnesses appeared to have been set up in order to make out the prosecution case. Accused had been nominated in the end of the FIR due to suspicion which however strong, could not take place of proof to warrant conviction on a capital charge. Accused at such stage did not appear to be guilty of the offence. BAIL GRANTED

NLR 2002 SD 702. Mumtaz Ali V/S The State (Karachi)

S.302 PPC. Statements of complaiaant and other PWs to the effect that accused had announced the murder of deceased would be merely hearsay without independent corroboration. Accused implicated in murder case on such statements released on bail as case against him required further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED

2004 MLD 1818. Muhammad Yaseen & 2 Others V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302 PPC. Accused were not named in FIR but subsequently complainant in his statement had shown suspicion upon 11 persons including accused persons that they had murdered deceased. During investigation conducted by different police officer, eight co-accused were let off and accused were sent to judicial lock up on the insistence of complainant party. Only evidence available against accused was that they had made extra-judicial confession before the complainant and other witnesses. Doctor in post-mortem examination had not found any external injury on the person of deceased and according to report of chemical examiner no poison was detected in viscera of the deceased. Case of further enquiry. BAIL GRANTED

2007 MLD 1279.Muhammad Younis @ Macca V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302 PPC. Accused was not named in the FIR rather he was shown as the informer of the presence of the dead-body in a factory. Another accused suspected as murderer of the deceased in the FIR on the basis of strong motive had been exonerated by complainant and he later on had involved the present accused. Complainant, had stated that extra-judicial confession had been made by accused before him and other witnesses admitting that he had killed the deceased after committing rape with her, but the chemical examiner’s report did not support the version of the complainant. No other incriminating material was available on record against the accused. Case demanded further probe. BAIL GRANTED.

2008 YLR 16. Ali Sher V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/109/34 PPC. Incident was a case of blind murder which was reported to the police through a report made under S.174 CrPC by one who had found dead bodies of two persons. Accused and his co-accused were involved in the case on the basis of statement recorded under S.161 CrPC. whereby it was claimed that accused and his co-accused had made extra-judicial confession of murdering both deceased. Said extra-judicial confession recorded by the police was in the form of a joint statement of all accused. Gun alleged to have been recovered at the instance of accused was not sent to Fire Arm Expert. Evidentiary value of recovery of gun would be open to serious criticism. Case of further inquiry within the meaning of S. 497 CrPC, in circumstances, had been made out in favour of accused. Co-accused had already been released on bail and case of accused was at par with that of said accused. BAIL GRANTED.

2008 PCrLJ 1505.. Nazar Hussain V/S The State & another (Lahore)

S.302/34/109 PPC. Accused was not named in FIR but was subsequently involved along with his co-accused through supplementary statement. Supplementary statement of the complainant and the witnesses, showed that accused and his co-accused confessed their guilt before prosecution witnesses. Statement of said witnesses had revealed that all accused confessed their guilt jointly before the said prosecution witnesses, which was not admissible in evidence. Remaining evidence which was last seen and recovery of pistol, prima facie, was not sufficient to establish any offence against accused. BAIL GRANTED

NLR 2004 SD 818. Dadan @ Dad Muhammad V/S The State (Larkana)

Case of two versions of murder occurrence would be case of further inquiry when accused was not nominated in FIR but implicated in statements of PWs recorded U/S 164 . BAIL GRANTED

2004 SCMR 283. Naseem Malik V/S The State (SC.DB)

S.419/420/468/417/477/109 PPC. Statement of co-accused implicating the accused can be validly taken into consideration while deciding such matters. BAIL OF CO-ACCUSED CANCELLED.

2006 PCrLJ 1469. Rehmat @ Rahmani & another V/S The State (Lahore)

S.457/380/411 PPC. Delay of two days in lodging FIR. Accused who were involved in the matter on suspicion, had been challaned mainly on the ground that they had made extra-judicial confession before prosecution witnesses. Despite being joint, confessional statement was ditto of FIR. Accused were behind the bars for the last two months and they did not have a previous history of involvement in such like cases. BAIL GRANTED

2 : Appreciation of Evidence

2003 PCrLJ 206. Dilshad Hussain V/S The State (Lahore)

S.295-B & 84 PPC. Art.40 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Appreciation of evidence. Retraced confession in which no other evidence was available on record to prove the charge. Question was as to whether conviction could be recorded on the basis of a retracted confession if there was no other corroborative evidence on record. Not permissible in Islam to inflict punishment on an accused person if he retracted from the confession allegedly made by him. Accused had taken the plea that he was a true Muslim and could not even think of defiling the Holy Quran. Convicting a Muslim on the charge U/S 295-B PPC to imprisonment for life when he had clearly denied the charge and claimed that he was a true Muslim and could not even think of such an act and when the only evidence available with the prosecution was that of extra-judicial confession, would be clearly without any lawful justification.

No Muslim could even think of saying or claiming before his fellow Muslim that he had shown any disrespect to the Holy Qur’an, if any one did so such a person could not be in sound mental health. Report opf the Medical Superintendent had lent support to the view that if it was believed that accused had actually made such a statement before the witnesses, he must be suffering from a fit of insanity at that particular time which was covered by S.84 PPC. Prosecution had not been able to prove the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. ACQUITTAL

1997 PCrLJ 709. Sheraz Ahmed V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Only evidence against the accused was his extra-judicial confession made after 2.5 months of the occurrence

KLR 1995 CrC 280. Muhammad Saleem V/S The State (Bahawalpur).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession is generally a weak piece of evidence and has to be received with caution. It can only be worthy of credit if (a) it comes from an unimpeachable source and (b) it is corroborated by any piece of credibvle evidence. ACQUITTAL

1995 PCrLJ 905. Liaquat Ali V/S The State (Lahore DB).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession was weakest type of evidence which required that before it was relied upon, it must be supported by some independent circumstantial evidence coming from an unimpeachable source.

NLR 1995 CrLJ 29. Faiz Baksh V/S The State (Bahawalpur).

S.302 PPC. Sentence of life imprisonment would be unsustainable after court’s findings that no conviction can be made on extra-judicial confession as same is weak type of evidence. (2) Extra-judicial confession made to witnesses who were also witnesses of recovery of crime weapon, would be unreliable. ACQUITTAL

1995 MLD 664. Muhammad Aslam Pervez @ Ghazi V/S The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. One witness of extra-judicial confession was not known to the accused and not in a position to help him while the second was interested being relative of the deceased. Both prosecution witnesses joined investigation late.

1996 MLD 627. Muhammad Anwar V/S The State (Lahore DB).

S.302/34 PPC. S.164 CrPC. Occurrence was unwitnessed event. Extra-judicial confession made in the case appeard to be the outcome of undue influence and was supported by highly interested and inimical witnesses and belied by medical evidence. Wajtakkar evidence did not advance the prosecution case. ACQUITTAL

1996 MLD 909. Shafqat Ali @ Patta V/S The State (Lahore DB).

S.302/34 PPC. Art.38/39/42/43 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Where prescribed formalities which aid in ascertainment of voluntariness of extra-judicial confession were not available, it would not be given that much weight which is accorded to judicial confession.

Extra-judicial confession is admissible if material on record could lead to conclusion that it was made voluntarily and was true, its probative value would be the same as that of recorded U/S 164 CrPC. Said confession must be proved by unimpeachable evidence and only be relied upon which its supportive evidence is invulnerable. It would be further unreliable when the words of the maker were not reproduced accurately. ACQUITTAL

NLR 1996 SD 388. Muhammad Asghar V/S The State (FSC.DB).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession becomes tainted piece of evidence when a doubt has been created as to whether accused at all had made extra-judicial confession. Very strong independent corroboration for making it basis of conviction would be required. ACQUITTAL

NLR 1998 CrLJ 74. Muhammad Naeem V/s The State (Lahore).

S.302 PPC. Extra-judicial confession becomes unacceptable when dead body was not even identifiable and same was not even detected for a number of days. (2) Conduct of witness of extra-judicial confession in not handing over accused to police or making a report to police casts serious doubt on their veracity and renders extra-judicial confession unreliable. (3) Mere fact that accused was not able to point out any enmity against witnesses of extra-judicial confession would not by itself be sufficient to rely upon their evidence which suffers from inherent defects. ACQUITTAL

1998 PCrLJ 1941 Sabir V/S The State (Quetta DB).

S.302(b) PPC. Under the Islamic concept of criminal administration of justice, extra-judicial confession has been considered as no evidence for the purpose of awarding punishment to accused. ACQUITTAL

1998 SCMR 1281. Muhammad Aijaz Ahmed V/S Raja Fahim Fazal & 2 Others (FB).

S.302/34 PPC. No ocular evidence was available to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Unexplained long silence of prosecution witnesses about the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused had made their genuineness doubtful and the same were not corroborated by any independent or unimpeachable circumstances. Prosecution evidence was neither probable nor inspired confidence. Concurrent finding of acquittal by courts below was based on cogent and sound reasons and did not suffer from any impropriety, illegality or infirmity. LEAVE NOT GRANTED TO COMPLAINANT

2000 SCMR 528. Ziaul Rehman V/S The State (FB).

S.302 PPC. Art.39/40 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Extra-Judicial Confession. Evidence of extra-judicial confession alone without any corroboration was not sufficient to maintain any conviction thereon. One weakpiece of evidence could not corroborate another similar evidence. 2: Accused about a month prior to registration of FIR quarreled with his wife, who thereafter left his house alongwith her brother leaving the two children in the accused custody. Brother of accused’s wife, allegedly went to accused’s house to enquire about the children when allegedly accused made an extra-judicial confession before him admitting to have thrown the children in the canal, thus, causing their death. Such extra-judicial confession was alleged to have been heard by two other witnesses. accused, during investigation led the I.O. in presence of the witnesses to the canal.

Nothing incriminating could be recovered from the place. accused, in his statement before the court, denied the allegation and pleaded innocent but neither produced any evidence in his defence nor he made any statement u/s 340(2) crPC. Although there was evidence of extra-judicial confession but that evidence was not corroborated by any other evidence produced by prosecution.

Neither the bodies of the children nor any other incriminatory evidence could be recovered by the police. Evidence of pointing out the place of occurrence by the accused, could not be of any consequence to the prosecution as nothing incriminatory was recovered therefrom. Such evidence, in fact, was inadmissible as same could not be considered as exception to Art.39 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Accused had merely pointed out the place to police as being the place where the children had been thrown by him and that pointation had not led to discovery of any fact for the purpose of Art.40 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Such evidence could not be relied upon as corroborating evidence. JUDGEMENT SET-ASIDE

200 SCMR 1634. Nasreen Akhtar V/S The State.

S.302 PPC. Retracted extra-judicial confession. Evidentiary value. Mere fact that co-accused had retracted the extra-judicial confession would not by itself lessen its evidentiary value when the retracted extra-judicial confession had been fully corroborated in material particulars by recovery evidence of crime weapons, medical evidence and opinion of Handwriting Expert. (2) S.164 CrPC. Extra-judicial confession. Retraction… Effect…. Unless such extra-judicial confession of co-accused was corroborated in material particulars, it would not be prudent to base conviction on its strength alone. APPEAL DISMISSED

2001 PCrLJ 773. Zahid Iqbal V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b) PPC. Retracted extra-judicial confession of the accused alone could not be made the sole basis of his conviction without corroboration which the prosecution had failed to bring on record through any other piece of direct or circumstantial evidence. Prosecution evidence fell short of legal proof required in the case of capital charge to establish the guilt of accused for the murder of the deceased. ACQUITTAL

2001 MLD 1587. Mst. Robina V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302(b), 201 & 109 PPC. Case against the accused being that of capital punishment, in such like cases evidence must have come from an unimpeachable source which was missing in the case as there was only extra-judicial confession of the accused and that too before the close relatives of the deceased. Extra-judicial confession was weak type of evidence and capital punishment could not be awarded solely on such evidence. ACQUITTAL

2001 SCMR 1405. Ziaul Rehman V/S The State (FB)

S.302 PPC. Art.40 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. Evidence of extra-judicial confession alone without any corroboration was not sufficient to maintain any conviction thereon. One weak piece of evidence could not corroborate another weak piece of evidence. Accused had merely pointed out the place to the police where he had thrown the children, but the same having not led to the discovery of any fact for the purpose of Art.40 o, such evidence could not be relied upon as corroboratory evidence. Delay of 266 days in filing the petition was condoned as dismissal of appeal for such technical reasons would have caused grave injustice to the accused under the circumstances of the case. ACQUITTAL

2001 SCMR 1914. Mst. Robina Bibi V/S The State (FB).

S.302/392 PPC. Art.39 Qanoon-e-Shahadat. S.164 CrPC. Retracted extra-judicial confession. Such confession can be used against maker thereof, if it is corroborated by other evidence. LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

2002 PCrLJ 1245. Iftikhar @ Kali & 2 Others V/S The State (Lahore)

S.302/392/34 PPC. Evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to judicial confession of co-accused inspired confidence. Evidence of extra judicial confession though a weak piece of evidence, but if it was corroborated by other independent sources, same could be relied upon. Pistol recovered from co-accused matched with empty recovered from the spot.

Recovery of empty, pistol and its matching with weapon and medical evidence had corroborated extra-judicial con