Mst. Razia Hanfi etc Vs The State etc.

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, D.I.KHAN BENCH.

(Judicial Department)

Cr.A No.25-D/2024 with Cr.M.No.08-D/2024 & Murder Reference No.02-D/2024.

Mst. Razia Hanfi etc Vs The State etc Date of hearing: 25.09.2025.

For Appellants: M/S Muhammad Yousaf Khan and Asad Aziz Mehsud, Advocates.

For State: Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Sappal

AAG.

For Respondent: Haji Muhammad Shakeel, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

FARAH JAMSHED, J.- On 18.03.2024, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II/GBV Court, Dera Ismail Khan announced conviction of accused Mst. Razia Hanfi and Mst. Amra Aman for the murder of Mst.

Saifoora Bibi and sentenced under section 302(b) PPC in case FIR No.216 dated 29.03.2022, registered under Sections 302/34 PPC at Police Station Cantt, D.I. Khan. Through the instant criminal appeal, convicts Mst. Razia Hanfi and Mst. Amra Aman have questioned the legality and validity of their conviction and sentence awarded to them vide judgment and order dated 18.03.2024. Through the impugned judgment and order, appellants were sentenced to death as Ta’zir for causing the death of Mst. Saifoora

Bibi and were also liable to pay Rs.20,00,000/-, each, to the legal heirs of deceased in terms of Section 544- A, Cr.P.C. or in default thereof, to suffer six months’ simple imprisonment. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to them. The learned trial Court has also submitted Murder Reference No.02-D/2024 for confirmation of sentence of death.

2.The prosecution case, as divulged from the FIR, registered on the strength of Murasila and subsequently culminated in the shape of FIR, is that on 29.03.2022 at about 7:30 a.m., complainant Zahid son of Lal Shah, (PW-11) while present with dead body of his niece, Mst. Saifoora Bibi, aged about 18/19 years, reported that he was informed by the Mohtamim of the Madrassa, Falah-lil-Banat, Anjum Abad, D.I. Khan, about murderous assault upon his niece, named above. Upon reaching the spot, he found his niece lying in the pool of blood with her throat slit near the Madrassa gate. He was informed that the deceased arrived there by rickshaw around 7:05 a.m.

The Madrassa gate was still closed, and few females in Madrassa uniform, were already present there.

Amongst those females Razia Hanfi and Amra Aman, along with co-accused Ayesha Naumani attacked her

with sharp-edged weapons, slitting her throat and causing her instantaneous death. The incident was allegedly witnessed by residents of the area and Madrassa staff. The motive was not initially disclosed in the FIR. No motive was disclosed in the FIR.

3.The complainant charged the appellants and juvenile co-accused Ayesha Naumani for the brutal murder of his niece. The report of complainant reduced into writing at the spot as Murasila was sent to the police station for formal registration of criminal case, hence the ibid FIR.

4.The dead body was shifted to the hospital where Dr. Javeria (PW-6) conducted autopsy on the dead body at about 09:15 a.m. All the three accused were arrested from their house on the same day and crime weapons (knives) as well as blood stained Burqa, Chadder, Dupatta were taken into possession through recovery memos.

5.On the following day, i.e. 30.03.2022, the accused were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate Salim-ur-Rahman (PW-3) for recording of confessional statement. After fulfilling legal formalities and granting sufficient time for reflection,

their confessional statements were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

6.In their confessions, the accused admitted their guilt, explained the notice for committing the murder, and disclosed that they had handed over the weapons of offence and blood-stained Burqas to the police. The learned Magistrate categorically stated that the confessions were made voluntarily, without any duress, threat, or inducement.

7.Dr. Javeria (PW-6) conducted the post- mortem examination of the deceased at about 9:15 a.m. on the day of occurrence. She found a deep incised wound on the neck, extending from below the left angle of the mandible to the right posterior neck, severing the trachea and cervical spine, with the head and clothes soaked in blood.

8.On the same day, at about 1:45 p.m., she also medically examined the accused and found fresh injuries on their hands: a sharp cut injury on Razia Hanfi, and abrasions/bruises on Amra Aman and co- accused. The nature and timing of these injuries were consistent with use of sharp or blunt weapons indicating active participation in the assault. After

examination, she issued medico legal certificates (MLCs) of all three injured/accused, duly signed by her and endorsed their injury sheets.

9.Investigation of the case was conducted by Tariq Salim OII, who was examined before the trial Court as PW-8. He inspected the crime scene, collected blood-stained earth, and prepared a site plan.

He, along with lady constable, then proceeded to the house of the accused/appellants situated nearby. The appellants confessed and led to the recovery of blood- stained knives, Burqas, and Chadder, which were seized by him and sealed into parcels.

10.During interrogation, the accused disclosed the motive for the murder of deceased stating that they believed Mst. Saifoora committed blasphemy, claiming to have received “divine instruction in dream” to kill her. On their pointation, a wooden stick, register, and religious booklets were also recovered from their house.

11.The Investigating Officer recorded statements of relevant witnesses, including Mohtamim of the Madrassa, namely Zainab Yasin in presence of her husband Shafi Ullah and rickshaw driver who

used to pick and drop deceased from house to Madrassa and back home, seized the deceased’s blood-stained clothes, and sent all recovered items to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and DNA Laboratory, Khyber Medical College, Peshawar, for examination.

12.After completion of investigation, the challan was submitted against the accused/appellants before the learned trial Court.

13.Since accused Mst. Ayesha Naumani was juvenile, therefore, separate challan under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, was submitted in the trial Court and on conviction judgment and order dated 18.03.2024, she preferred separate appeal, bearing Cr.A.No.24-D of 2024, which is also going to be decided today, vide our separate judgment.

14.The appellants were formally charged under Section 302(b) PPC, to which they pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution examined thirteen (13) witnesses in support of its case. In their statements under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the appellants professed innocence and alleged false implication, contending that they were coerced by police for recording their confession.

However, they neither made statements on oath, under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants, vide impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2024, as mentioned earlier.

15.We have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel for parties and learned AAG for the State and examined the record through their valuable assistance.

16.It lies within the innate human psyche to take the life of another, having traceable origins to the story of Cain and Abel ___ the sons of Adam and Eve.

That episode is more than a mere record of the first crime, rather it serves as a symbolic, theological and psychological lens into human nature, explaining why crime, selfishness, jealousy, and conflict continue to exist in our increasingly complex world. Against this backdrop, the value and sanctity of human life form the true measure of civilized society. In criminal jurisprudence the protection of human life has become a central reflection of justice and humanity.

17.It is for this reason that the offence of murder, or Qatl-e-Amd, is classified as a heinous crime, not only against the individual victim but also against the fabric of society and the authority of the State. Recognizing the gravity of such an offence, the law prescribes the punishment of death, to be imposed when the charge of murder stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the decision to deprive an individual of life ___ even under the sanction of law for the offence of murder ___ cannot be treated lightly. The ultimate penalty of death entails the most severe encroachment upon the “right to life.” Accordingly, the law mandates thorough procedural safeguards to ensure that such sentence is imposed in accordance with justice and due process.

18.Section 374 Cr.P.C. stipulates that whenever a Court of Sessions imposes the sentence of death, the case must be submitted to The High Court for its confirmation. It expressly provides that the sentence shall not be executed unless confirmed by the High Court. The proceedings before the High Court under section 374 Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality but an additional layer of judicial scrutiny, permitting appraisement of guilt or innocence of the convict.

This legislative mechanism serves as a final safeguard vesting in the High Court, the solemn responsibility of confirming that the sentence of death has been justly and lawfully imposed.

19.Having said that, the following points arise for determination of instant appeal and adjudication of murder reference:

(i)Whether the occurrence took place in the mode, manner and time as alleged by the complainant and prosecution;

(ii)Whether the presence of the appellants at the crime scene is established;

(iii)Whether the retracted judicial confessions made by the appellants could safely be relied upon;

(iv)Whether the recoveries effected on the pointation of the accused/appellants, corroborated by the FSL, and DNA reports connect them with the commission of the offence; and

(v)Whether the motive stands established

20.The occurrence took place in broad daylight near a Madrassa, and the FIR was lodged within twenty-five minutes of the incident. The appellants being students of same Madrassa and close relatives inter se, were arrested soon after the occurrence from their house, situated near the crime scene. On their disclosures, weapons of offence (knives) along with blood-stained Burqas, Chadder were recovered on the same day. Given these circumstances, it can be

reasonably concluded that the incident occurred at the reported time and was communicated promptly, thereby eliminating the possibility of false implication or fabrication. The apex court in Aurangzeb1 case, held that: -

“The incident was reported with a remarkable promptitude, followed by postmortem examination that cannot be viewed as delayed, factors excluding possibility of deliberations and consultations, in retrospect suggestive of witnesses' presence at the stated point of time, coinciding with the durations mentioned in the autopsy report. Though inconsequential for want of forensic verification, nonetheless, the weapon recovered on petitioner's disclosure is consistent with the nature of fatal injury. Occurrence being a broad daylight affair before a large gathering, does not admit hypothesis of substitution. Appraisal of evidence carried out by both the Courts below, on our own independent analysis, is found by us in accord with the principles of safe administration of criminal justice and as such does not call for interference”.

21.In the present case, besides complainant, no other private independent an eyewitness of the occurrence has come forward. Therefore, the prosecution case is mainly based upon circumstantial evidence. In this context, the apex court in Muhammad Younus2 case, has laid down following Aurangzeb v. The State (2020 SCMR 612) Muhammad Younus versus The State (1996 P.Cr.L.J, 109)

four guiding principles for substantiating a case based on circumstantial evidence:

The conviction can only be made on the basis of circumstantial evidence, if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of the accused. The circumstantial evidence must be incompatible with that of the innocence of accused. It should be incapable of any explanation of any other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt of accused.

For proving a case through circumstantial evidence following four essentials are required: -

(1)Circumstances from which conclusion is to be drawn should be fully established;

(2)All facts should be consistent with hypothesis;

(3)Circumstances should be of a conclusive nature;

(4)Circumstances should lead to moral certainty and actually, exclude every hypothesis but one proposed to be proved.

22.Given these guiding principles, examination of record takes us to the statement of Karam Elahi (PW-5), who formally documented the report of complainant as a Murasila. Upon receiving information of the incident, he proceeded to the spot where the complainant was present along with body of the deceased, Mst. Saifoora Bibi. He conducted an examination of the deceased and obtained a statement from the complainant, which served as the basis for preparing the Murasila. He also prepared the injury

sheet and inquest report of the deceased, who was identified by both the complainant and one Mujeeb- ur-Rehman. The dead body along with relevant documents were handed over to constable Imran, who escorted the dead body, along with complainant, to the hospital for autopsy, while Murasila was sent to Police Station through constable Arif for registration of the criminal case. Despite rigorous cross- examination, the defence was unable to undermine his testimony regarding the initial proceedings he conducted that led to the drafting of the Murasila.

Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that the incident was reported at the stated time, effectively eliminating any suggestion of manipulation. In this regard, Constable Muhammad Arif, who took Murasila to police station, was examined as PW-4, and his account fully corroborated the testimony of

PW-5.

23.Undeniably, complainant, Zahid (Pw-11) is not an eyewitness of the occurrence, however, since the matter was reported by him, hence, we have to analyze his testimony regarding the events leading to his report recorded as Murasila, Ex. PA. On close examination, his narration of events was found

straightforward, natural and confidence inspiring.

Regarding certain discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for appellants, in cross-examination of the complainant, suffice it to say that the occurrence took place on 29.3.2022, while his statement was recorded on 15.02.2024 i.e. after almost two years hence such minor discrepancies were quite natural especially when pertinent details of the events were reiterated clearly and without omissions and improvements. In Nazir Ahmed3 case, it was held by the Supreme Court that: -

“It is a well settled proposition of law that as long as the material aspects of the evidence have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence. The test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires confidence. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defence can take advantage of the same. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored”.

24.The testimony of Investigation Officer (PW-

8)tells that both accused were arrested from their house, where blood-stained articles and the weapons Nazir Ahmed v. The State (2023 SCMR 1299)

of offence were recovered on their pointation. The FSL and DNA reports confirmed that the blood stains on the accused’s clothing and recovered weapons matched the deceased’s blood profile, leaving no doubt of primary involvement of accused.

25.The medical officer, Dr. Javeria (PW-6) corroborated the prosecution story by confirming that deceased died due to a deep incised wound on the throat, caused by a sharp-edged weapon, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. She conducted an examination of both individuals, now convicted, and identified recent injuries: a sharp laceration on Razia Hanfi’s hand and contusions on Umra Aman, which were sustained at the time of the incident. She endorsed MLCs of the accused. A specific question qua injuries sustained by the accused was put to them during their examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C., to which they replied that they were beaten by the local police to confess their guilt while they were in their custody and the said injuries might be from the torture of police. The assertion that these injuries were caused by police was not substantiated, as the records indicate there were neither complaints nor medical evidence of torture

during custody. Besides, no evidence was brought on record to corroborate their stance.

26.Since the prosecution’s case, besides other circumstantial evidence, mainly hinges upon the confessional statements of the accused, now convict, hence, it would be more appropriate to discuss the same. Admittedly, the appellants were arrested on the day of occurrence from their house and on the same day, the Investigating Officer recovered weapons of offence along with blood-stained Chadder and Burqas from their house. Record tells that the appellants/accused were willing and ready to confess their guilt before the Judicial Magistrate on the day of occurrence, however, the learned Judicial Magistrate granted their judicial custody for 24 hours for reflection and to ensure voluntariness. Their confessional statements were recorded on the following day of the occurrence after fulfilling all codal formalities and again extending time for reflection.

27.The examination of testimony of PW-3, Salim-ur-Rahman, Judicial Magistrate-I, who recorded the confessions, indicate that the procedure

adopted by him was in conformity with Section 164 Cr.P.C., ensuring that confessions were true and voluntary. It is evident from record that the appellants/accused were cautioned, given sufficient reflection time of more than 24 hours, assured of police absence, and informed of the consequences of confession. The voluntariness and absence of any undue influence and pressure is evident from the fact that appellants were allowed access to Shah Noor, their uncle, during deliberation and reflection and thereafter their confessional statements were recorded.

The relevant extract of the cross-examination of Pw-3 is reproduced below for quick reference:

For further thinking I remanded the accused to judicial lockup for 24 hours...

It is mentioned in the order of 29.03.2022 that the accused were willing to record their confession but I deemed it proper to give some time to further think over...

The accused were again given 30 minutes time to think over and they were also allowed to sit with their uncle Shah Noor to discuss the matter...

During this 30 minutes they were jointly seated in the court room for thinking over...

28.Despite being subjected to extensive cross- examination, Pw-3 maintained consistency in his testimony regarding the judicial confessions made by the appellants. He was examined regarding every

detail of the process by which the confessions were documented. However, his statements did not provide any information or evidence indicating that the confessions had been made involuntarily. There was nothing in his deposition to support the notion that the confessions were procured through duress, coercion, pressure, promise, or any form of undue influence.

Although learned counsel for the appellants tenaciously pursued the argument that the Magistrate committed grave irregularity while sending the accused for judicial custody instead of recording their confessions but failed to show any irregularity in the process nor could establish element of torture, threat, or coercion of the police for extracting confessions.

The confessions are straightforward, detailed, and consistent with the prosecution case and subsequent recoveries.

29.True that the appellants retracted from their confessions, however, such retraction alone would not be sufficient to discard their confessions when it is sufficiently established that the same have been recorded without any pressure or coercion and are further corroborated by overall circumstances of the present case. The law is settled that if a confession is

found voluntary, truthful, and corroborated by independent evidence, it can safely be made the basis of conviction even if retracted later. In Shaukat Ali4 case, the apex Court held that: - “Though the appellant when indicted claimed trial and retracted from his confessional statement during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, nonetheless, on a careful examination we have found his confessional statement free from all taints. Seemingly voluntary without duress or inducement;

inculpatory in nature the confessional statement reflects a complete and truthful narration of event leading to deceased's death. The learned Magistrate has taken due care to administer necessary warnings to the appellant and recorded each detail thereof in his own hand. It does not appear to have been fabricated to advance prosecution's case and thus can be squarely relied upon without any reflection on safe administration of criminal justice. It is by now well settled that a retracted confession can form basis for conviction if found voluntary and truthful. Retraction notwithstanding when examined in the totality of circumstances, the disclosure is synchronized with the events leading towards deceased's death and recovery of dead body on appellant's disclosure. These circumstances exclude every hypothesis of his innocence and thus the Courts below have rightly relied upon the confessional statement, there being no space to entertain any hypothesis of innocence. Guilty verdict calls for no interference; the appeal fails”.

Similarly, in Dadullah5 case, the Supreme Court opined that:

Shaukat Ali v. The State and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 577) Dadullah and another vs. The State (2015 SCMR 856)

This is settled law that conviction could not be recorded on the sole basis of confessional statement and the prosecution has to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. However, having gone through the evidence, we have found that the confessional statements of the accused were not the result of maltreatment and coercive measures. The Judicial Magistrate has stated that the accused were given time and they were told that they are not bound to record their statements. It was further clarified that if they did not want to make their statements, they will not be handed over to Levie and they will be sent to judicial lockup. Opportunity was provided to both the accused to cross-examine each other. Notwithstanding the procedural defect in the confessional statement, if any, a judicial confession if it is found true, voluntary and confidence inspiring, could safely be made basis for conviction. Retraction of confession by the accused seems to be palpably false and incorrect only to save their skin and the only conclusion that could be drawn is that confessional statements were recorded by the accused voluntarily.

Regarding retracted confession, the apex court in Muhammad Amin’s case6, held that: - “There is no doubt that petitioner has retracted from his statement got recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. but stated in his statement got recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. that it was a result of coercion and torture but surprisingly in his statement got recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. a complete somersault was taken by saying that it was not got recorded. The learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court could not answer how to reconcile such a contradictory plea. We are of the considered view that the confessional statement got recorded by the petitioner was true and voluntary. It is to be noted that once a confessional statement was found true and voluntary, conviction could have been awarded”.

Muhammad Amin v. The State (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 219)

30.In the present instance, the confessions are supported by medical evidence, recoveries, and forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports. The subsequent retraction of these confessions during statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

appears to be an afterthought and does not reduce their evidentiary significance, particularly as there is no material on record to support claims of duress, coercion, or undue pressure.

31.So far as blood-stained articles are concerned, same were sent to the FSL, and as per report Ex. PK, the blood on the articles was opined to be human blood. Subsequently, the blood-stained recovered articles i.e. white Burqa of accused Razia Hanfi, white Chadder of accused Razia Hanfi, white Burqa of accused Ayesha Naumani, Burqa of deceased Saifoora Bibi, Chadder and Qamees of deceased Saifoora Bibi were sent to Khyber Medical Forensic DNA Laboratory, Peshawar, wherefrom a positive report Ex. PW 10/2 was received, which further strengthened the prosecution case.

32.These scientific findings conclusively connect the appellants with the murder. The Supreme

Court in Ali Haider alias Papu7 case, has held that the DNA evidence is the “gold standard” in criminal investigation, providing the highest degree of accuracy for linking an accused to a crime. While elaborating the importance of DNA evidence, it was held that:-

“DNA evidence is considered as a gold standard to establish the identity of an accused. As a sequel of above discussion, it can safely be concluded that DNA Test due to its accuracy and conclusiveness is one of the strongest corroborative pieces of evidence. In Salman Akram Raja case11 this Court has held that DNA test help provides the courts the identity of the perpetrator with high degree of confidence, and by using of the DNA technology the courts are in a better position to reach at a just conclusion whereby convicting the real culprits and excluding the potential suspects, as well as, exonerating wrongfully involved accused”.

33.Coming to the motive, it is well settled that principle that proof of motive is not a sine qua non for conviction in a case otherwise proved beyond reasonable doubt. The absence or weakness of motive does not dilute the strength of direct and corroborative evidence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that in cases where guilt stands proved, the normal sentence for murder is death, unless mitigating circumstances justify reduction. Ref: Waris Khan v.

Ali Haider alias Papu v. Jameel Hussain and others (PLD 2021 S.C. 362)

The State (2001 SCMR 387), Talib Hussain v. State (1995 SCMR 1776), State/Government of Sindh v.

Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585), Mushtaq Ahmad v.

Muhammad Siddique (PLD 1975 SC 160), Manzoor Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1983 SC 197), Sardar Ali v.

State (1969 SCMR 542), Ahmad Nisar v. State (1977 SCMR 175), Sher Ali v. State (1980 SCMR 291), Ghulam Nazir v. State (1981 SCMR 805), Sher Daraz Khan v. State (1983 SCMR 266), Arif v. State (1984 SCMR 124), Mati-ur-Rehman v. State (1985 SCMR 489), Ahmad Khan v. State (1985 SCMR 975), Faqir Masih v. Mubarik Masih (1987 SCMR 320), Roheeda v. Khan Bahadur (1992 SCMR 1036), Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. State (PLD 1994 SC 259), Zulfiqar v.

State (1995 SCMR 1668), Intizar Hussain v.

Muhammad Sarwar (1996 SCMR 872), Ghuncha Gul v. State (1971 SCMR 368) and Muhammad Nazir v.

State (1985 SCMR 507).

34.For the foregoing reasons, we have found the prosecution evidence consistent, credible, and confidence inspiring. The occurrence took place in broad daylight, and it was reported promptly within twenty-five minutes, excluding any possibility of fabrication or false implication. The FIR, ocular

account, medical findings, and forensic results are in complete harmony.

35.The confessional statements of the appellants, recorded after full compliance with Section 164 Cr.P.C., are detailed, self-incriminatory, and voluntary. The learned Judicial Magistrate afforded sufficient time for reflection, cautioned the appellants of the legal consequences, and ensured their statements were made out of free will. There is no material to suggest coercion or duress especially when they were allowed access to Shah Noor, their uncle, during reflection.

36.Even though the confessions were later retracted during trial, it is settled law that a retracted confession, if found voluntary, true, and corroborated by other evidence, can form the basis of conviction. In the present case, the confessions stand fully corroborated by medical evidence, recoveries of incriminating articles, and forensic evidence.

37.The medical evidence further reinforces the prosecution version. The defence’s plea of coercion or false implication is an afterthought, unsupported by

any material or motive for the complainant or police to falsely implicate appellants.

38.The cumulative effect of the evidence forms an unbroken chain of events leading directly to the appellants thereby, leaving no room for doubt.

39.For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the charge of Qatl-i-Amd against both appellants through unimpeachable, confidence-inspiring, and legally admissible evidence. Based on the record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and sentenced them accordingly. The impugned judgment and order dated 18.03.2024 is well-reasoned which, being unexceptional, is not open to any interference.

40.Resultantly, the instant appeal, being bereft of merits, stands dismissed along with Cr.M No.08- D/2024. The Murder Reference No.02-D/2024 is answered in Affirmative.

Announced:

Kifayat --Sd/--

JUDGE

--Sd/--

JUDGE

(DB)Hon’ble Ms. Justice Farah Jamshed and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inam Ullah Khan