PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1499
Extra-judicial confession--
----Extra-judicial confession is weak type of evidence and cannot be relied under circumstances specially when there is no corroboration to same. [P. 1501] B
2012 SCMR 387.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 34--Bail after arrest, dismissal of--Allegation of--Non-bailable offence--Committed murder of deceased by strangulation--Confession of petitioner regarding commission of murder of deceased finds corroboration from post-mortem examination report of deceased as doctor observed that death occurred due to sharp weapon cutting trachea and major blood vessel of neck”--Petitioner was found guilty and he was fully implicated by complainant and P.Ws during investigation--Case of petitioner is one of further inquiry--No evidence is available to connect petitioner with commission of crime--Complainant with mala fide has made supplementary statement while impleading petitioner--Extra judicial confession stated by complainant and PW’s do not appeal to mind--Recovery mentioned by police, is not genuine one and has been falsely planted--Extra judicial confession of accused is a weak type of evidence which may be maneuvered by prosecution in a case where direct connecting evidence does not come its way whereas learned counsel for complainant has argued that matter falls within purview of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C--Although accused was nominated through supplementary statement but it was not with delay--On confession of petitioner, he was nominated and furthermore during investigation material recovery i.e. weapon of offence razor (Ustra) and motorcycle which was used during occurrence were recovefed from accused and it was also corroborative with medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report of decease--Bail was dismissed. [Pp. 1501 &1502] A, C & D
2020 PCr.LJ 776, 2021 SCMR 381, 2020 MLD 1896 and
2007 SCMR 404.
Retracted judicial or extra judicial confession--
----Question of--Questions as to retracted judicial or extra-judicial confession whether inculpatory or exculpatory, truthfulness or otherwise of judicial confession, absence of evidence against accused, possibility or impossibility of ultimate conviction of accused on basis of such inadmissible evidence, was not to be appreciated at bail stage--Question relating to intrinsic value of retracted judicial confession as to appraisal of evidence was not to be addressed at bail stage--Retracted judicial confession, if found truthful and confidence inspiring, could be relied upon on basis of tentative assessment of prosecution evidence and it was not possible to doubt credibility of judicial statement at bail stage--Matter that accused is not nominated in F.I.R., is riot of much importance when corroborating piece’ of evidence is available and connects accused with commission of offence. [P. 1502] E
1990 SCMR 315, 1997 SCMR 445 & 1999 SCMR 1794.
Bail--
----Non-bailable offence--Principle--In non-bailable offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years R.I. refusal of bail is a rule and grant of bail is an exception. [P. 1502] F
2003 YLR 181.
Mian Muzaffar Hussain Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Malik Muhammad Saddique Awan Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 24.5.2021.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1499
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Safdar Saleem Shahid, J.
MUJAHID--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 23011-B of 2021, decided on 24.5.2021.
Order
Through instant petition, Mujahid (petitioner) has sought post arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No. 404/2020 dated 12.05.2020, registered under Sections 302,148,149,34, PPC, at Police Station City Tandlianwafa District Faisalabad.
2. According to F.I.R., on 12.05.2020 the dead body of deceased Muhammad Hussain was found lying in the bushes near Water Mines. The complainant entertained suspicion against Mst. Tahira Bibi (widow of deceased) that she alongwith unknown culprits had committed the murder of his brother Muhammad Hussain.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. It has been noticed that although it was an unseen occurrence and petitioner was not nominated in the FIR yet on 13.05.2020 Mujahid petitioner made extra-judicial confession before Allah Ditta complainant and P.Ws Muhammad Ali and Hayadat wherein it was contended by him that he had illicit relations with Mst. Thira Bibi widow of deceased and when this fact came into the knowledge of the deceased they prepared a plan for his murder and on the night falling between 11/12.05.2020 they committed the murder of deceased by strangulation. It was further confessed by petitioner before the complainant and P.Ws that he (petitioner) cut throat of the deceased with Razor (Ustra) thereafter, they took the dead body from the house and threw it in the bushes. On the basis of aforesaid extra-judicial confession, petitioner was arrested by the police in this case and during investigation of instant case, mobile of deceased, motor-cycle allegedly used during the occurrence and razor (Ustra) stained with blood were recovered on his pointation. Confession of the petitioner regarding commission of murder of deceased finds corroboration from the post-mortem examination report of the deceased as doctor observed that death occurred due to sharp weapon cutting trachea and major blood vessel of neck”. The petitioner was found guilty and he was fully implicated by the complainant and P.Ws during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the case law reported as ‘Gul Muhammad and another vs. The State through Prosecutor-General Balochistan’ (2021 S.C.M.R. 381) and argued that extra-judicial confession is weak type of evidence and cannot be relied under the circumstances specially when there is no corroboration to the same. Learned counsel further referred the case law reported as ‘Muhammad Waseem vs. The State and others’ (2012 S.C.M.R. 387) that it is case of further inquiry, extra judicial confession is weak type of evidence which was inadmissible in evidence. Learned counsel referred the case law reported as ‘Asad Ali vs. The State and another’ (2020 P.Cr.LJ. 776) that the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry. No evidence is available to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. The complainant with mala fide has made supplementary statement while impleading the petitioner. The extra judicial confession stated by the complainant and PW’s do not appeal to the mind. The recovery mentioned by the police, is not genuine one and has been falsely planted. Counsel further referred the case law reported as ‘Muhammad Asif Javed vs. The State and another’ (2020 MLD 1896) that extra judicial confession of accused is a weak type of evidence which may be maneuvered by the prosecution in a case where direct connecting evidence does not come its way whereas learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the matter falls within the purview of prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Although accused was nominated through supplementary statement but it was not with the delay. On the confession of the petitioner, he was nominated and furthermore during investigation material recovery i.e. weapon of offence razor (Ustra) and motorcycle which was used during the occurrence were recovefed from the accused and it was also corroborative with the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report of the deceased. Learned counsel in this regard, referred the case law reported as Farooq Mengal vs. The State through A.G. Sindh, Karachi’ (2007 S.C.M.R. 404) that questions as to retracted judicial or extra-judicial confession whether inculpatory or exculpatory, truthfulness or otherwise of judicial confession, absence of evidence against accused, possibility or impossibility of ultimate conviction of accused on the basis of such inadmissible evidence, was not to be appreciated at bail stage--Question relating to intrinsic value of retracted judicial confession as to appraisal of evidence was not to be addressed at bail stage--Retracted judicial confession, if found truthful and confidence inspiring, could be relied upon on the basis of tentative assessment of prosecution evidence and it was not possible to doubt credibility of judicial statement at bail stage. The matter that accused is not nominated in the F.I.R., is not of much importance when corroborating piece’ of evidence is available and connects the accused with the commission of offence. Reliance was made on the case laws reported as Lal Muhammad vs. The State’ (1990 S.C.M.R. 315), ‘Munir Ahmad and another vs. The State’ (1997 S.C.M.R. 445) and ‘Raza Mohsin Qazilbash and others vs. Muhammad Usman Malik and others’ (1999 S.C.M.R. 1794). This is also settled principle that in non-bailable offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or ten years R.I. refusal of bail is a rule and grant of bail is an exception. Reliance is placed on the case law reported as ‘Suleman Khan and another vs. Buner Khan and another’ (2003 YLR 181). Prima facie, sufficient incriminating material is available on the record connecting the petitioner with the commission of the instant occurrence.
5. For what has been discussed above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner which is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Bail dismissed
0 Comments