Arif Iqbal (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

?y

FIIGII COUI{T' OF SINDII CTI{CUIT (]OURI',

I{YDBRAI}AI)

Cr. Appeaf No.D- 196 ol2019 [Confirnration Case No,43 ol20l9] -l-lre [Asadu llah versus State]

IlliIoR.ti:

l\{ lt. J USI' ICll NI Ul.l r\r\'l N'IAD I(AIttNl I'i I I r\ N A G I I A Nll{. J U S'l' I C E N'I Ll tl z\ I\'lNIr\ D SAL E lll\'1,l IiSSA It Appcllarrt 1'hrough NIr'. Ay'az IIrrssain 'l'urtio atlvocttic -l'lrluughX'lr. N'Irrlrirurnrctl Jlruil atlvocatt' Cornplainartt :

l-hc State 'l'lr i'ough I\'l r'. Slrlhzirrltt !iitlccrtt Nalt ivoolr ,,\ l' (' Date of hearing: 06.(16.2023

Date of ,iutlgrnent: 08.06.2023

JUDGNIIiN'I NIUIIAI\{N'IAD KAI{lNt I(llAN AGllr\, ,l: lhlor.r gh this appeal, appellant lras irrpugnecl the Judgment clated 31.10.2019 pennecl down by lear-ned Model Crinrinal Trial Court-l Hl,derabacl (I'rial Court) in Session Case No.448 ol 2017 [Re: 'fhe State versus Asaclulllh], outconrc ol Cl'inre No.93 o{'l0l7 r'egisteLccl at P.S Airport Flyclerabacl Ior offence puuisl'ratrlc uncler Section i0] l'I']C. r,r'hetetry the appellant has been convicled iurdel Section 265-ll(ii) Cr.P.C ancl sertlertcecl to deatl.r as tazir under Section 302(tr) PPC sLrb.ject to colfilmation bt' this coui't witl'r directions to pay compensatiorl ol'Rs.2,00,0001- to the legal heirs olrleceasecl as plovidecl undel Section 544-4. Cr'.P.C ancl in case of failure in pa1,111g111 thercof he has been directed to fulthcr suffer S.I fol six rnrrrrths rrrore.

2.Conlplainant Akbar Khan lodgecl the above FIR on 14.06.20 17, stating therein that he is a rikshara, dliver and he has six sorls aucl two clatrghters; that his son Wasiullah (cleceased) aged about 18/20 years is turmarrit:cl alld he is a rikshau'rnechanic; that on I1.06.2017 his sorr \\iasiLrllah lel't the ltrrttse at ahoLtt 2030 hours fbr pulchasing rnilk: that at atrout Il00 hours his voitnscr s()n ciure houte and inlolmed h.inr that when he rvtrs courittg houre he san, their rikshatt,, stancling at the shop of kaleji near Mehar .Ali I-lousing Scheme Latitabacl, but brother \\rasiullah r.vas nr)t there; thereafter' thel' startecl search ol'Wasiullah antl also tliecl 10 coutact hinr on his nrobile numhcr'0i01-i343987, btrt thc sattrL'\vrls switchecl o[f; that at night tinre at aLror.rt 02:00 am (12.06.2(.1 t7) fiends oi' WasiLrllah nauely .lavetl. .lahalzeb ancl llaees ctrme at his hoLrse alongwith,1, " I)iLgt' I ol 9

?E

rikshaw and informed that Wasiullah was no1 there as such thel, had hroughl the rikshaw of Wasiullah; theleafter they rvent in search of Wasiullah arrcl at ahout 1500 l'rours their relatives Asadullah (accusecl), Azizullah and Haztat also came at his house and enquired about his son Wasiullah; tl.rereafter Asadr"rllah, Azizullah -i and Hazrat also went in search of Wasiullah on rnotolcycle alongu,ith his another son Hadi: that at about 04:00 pnr they (conrplninant party) receivccl the call of Abdul Rehman tl.rat his son Wasiullah has bccn lecovelecl, thcrr tltel rvent xt police station and informed them about incident: lhereafter thel'alongwith police parly reached at the place where dead body of his son Wasiullah was lying in bushes; that the head of Wasiullah was cut dorvn rvitl.r edged churri: tlrerealter police took the dead bocl1, in Anrbulance antl lrrougl-rt the saute at Sha]t Bhitae I-lospital and after postmorlenl it was harrdecl over to thetr for its [rulial: Complainant alleged in FIR that Asaclullalr, r.r,ho is his relative, hacl suspicion over lfs son Wasiullah that he had illicit relations u,ith his wife, due trr uvhich he has killed his son.

3.After registlation of FIR investigatiorr u'as conducted and tlren challan rvas ' t submitted before the lealnecl Magistrate concerned, rvho took cog,rrizauce of the tnatter and sent the R&Ps to leamed Sessions .luclge. lhe copies rvere supplic.l to appellant at Ex.0l and fot'nral Charge was framecl against hinr at lix.04, to rvhich he pleaded not guilty and claimecl trial vide his plea at Ex.05. [n order to prove tl.re charge plosecution cxamined eight (08) witnesses at I4x.07 to 14. who exhibited and recognized celtain tlocuments at Ex,07/A to l4lA. llten ;.ttoseeutiott closed its side at Ex.l5. Statenrent of appellant, as requirecl utrtlct' Section i42 Cr.P.C was recorded at Ex.l6, wherein he denied the allegations of the plosecution witnesses and alleged false inrplica1i611. hqrvcr'('t'. neither he exanrined hinrself on Oath nol producecl un-r' r.r'itness in his ,le lerrse. l'intrll.v learned trial Court aftel lrearing the argunrcnls of the lealned counsel ftir thc parties convicted and sentenced lhe appellant. as mentioned supra. atrrl also sent refererrce to this Court under Section 374 CI.P.C for confirnration of death' senterlce arvarded to the appellant. We thelelole. decide the thtc ol' caplioned appeal as u ell as relerence [-r], t5it tt,.t*," .judgment.

1.The facts of the case as r.vell as evidence produced befole the tlial Court llncl art elaborate mentiorr in the inrpugned judgrnent. therelore. the sarne are trol teptodtrced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessaty repetition.

5.Learned colnsel tbr the appellant has cotttended that thc appellant is completely innocent ancl has been lalself inrplicated in lhc case b1 the

I

Page 2 ol 9

i-

complainant; tlrat the Flll rvas loclged alter atr trrlexplailled tlelal ot'3 clal'sl that there is lto eye witless to the rtrurcler' ; no ltrst seen evitlence: tlrlrt (hc.iLrdie ill confession of the appellant was not voh-urtalily rnacle as hc r.l'as strb.icct to lullulc by the police ancl as such it is ofno evidentialy value; that tlte cleceasecl phone hacl been loisted on the appellant ancl lor any ol all of'the above reilsolrs lhe apltellirnt should be acquittecl of tlrt chalgc b1' exterrtlirrg hiru tl're berrellt ol'tltc tlottbt. lrt support of his conteutiorls he placerl reliance on the cases of ()l (i) IIASIIIN{ QASIM ancl anotltcr vcrsus'l'he STATI! f2017 SCMI{ 9861' (ii) llASIllll MUIIAI\{MAD I(IIAN versus'l'he S'l'A'l'E 12022 S(l\111 9ti6l. (iii) MUIIAMMAD ADNAN and anolher Yersrrs Thc sl-A'rli [2t))l SCIt4l( irrl.

(iv)N{UHAMMAD SllOlrAN vcrsus'l'he S'l'A'l'E (2021 \( lvll{ l{it)61. (t) GIIULAh''l antl rnotltct' versus The S1'z\1'E 12022 yl.R t'ftrtc 361. (ri) I(ASHII ALI alias I(ALLJ versrrs 'l'hc Si'l'rVt'E [2022 S('N1lt l5l-sl. (\'ii) NIUIIAN{MAD IFTIIilIAR versus The S'l'zvl'I., [2022 S(:M11 97i] and (viii) MEIIMOOD AIIMAD and 3 others verstrs 'l'he S-l'A1'lI Il S95 S( MII 1271.

6.On tl.re other hand learned Additional l)rosecutor Geueral Sinclh ancl the conrplainar.rt lully supportecl the inrpugnetl .iutlgrnent atrcl conlerrclecl thal tlre prosecntior-r hacl fully plovecl its case beyoncl a leasouable clotrbt tl.rlor.rgh rieliable ' trust, u,orthy and conficlence inspiling evidence especially the jLrdicial conlessiotl of the appellant which cor,rl<j be hrlll,r'elietl ulx)n as agairrst thc iicctrsed despite being retlactecl at tlial: that norre of the r.r,itncsses hatl attv reasoll to lhlselv implicate the accused: that tl.re delaf in tlie l:lll lratl lreerr explainetl: lhitt thc Photre of the deceased had been lecoverecl on the pointation of the appellanl nlhiclr rlvas hiclclen in a place lvhich only the appellant cottlcl have knowtl about and that the death penalty lvas applical)le to lhis case due to llte brutal natttre ol the ollence. lrr support of their contenlior.rs they placed rcliance o1 the cascs t,l (i) l(llr\N IVIUIIAMMAD ancl others versus The S-!'A'IE [201] SCN4I( 7051 and (ii) TANVEER AIIMED velsus Thc S1'A'l'li [201 I P Ct. L.J 6771.

7.We have heard the arguutents of the lealrred counsel fbl tlre ;talties. gorre through lhe entire eviclence whiclr has bee'n lc:atl out by the learnecl cor-rnsel lirr llte:. appellant and the impLrgned judgment \vith their able assistr'tLrce zurcl ltave collsidered the t'elevatrt lan including the crtsc lari'cited at the bar.

8.Basecl or.r oru't'eassessment o1'the eviclence of the PW's, especially those rv{ro discoveled the clecapitated bocli,ancl the rnedical evidence atrd r.ltlrer nredical reports inclucling tlre post nlortclrr repol't ol tlre cleceasecl. Iccolet'v o[' blood stair.recl ear.tli ancl cftturi at the crirue sceue \ve llncl that the prosecrr{ion has proved t

l)rrqr'3 ol 9

P

beyond a reasonable dout'rt that Wasiullah l'athnn (the deceased) u'its trurde'tecl [.rt' being stabbed in the chest and then beheadccl [r5' a churri orl ll/l].1l.1016 in between 2030 and l6l0 hours in an open plot situated near Gulistatr-e-Sarmast to Univelsity Road.

i

9.The only question leli belbre us thclel'ore is "r,ho nrut'clcr',-'.1 lhc dcccasctl

by chuni at the said tinre. date and location'i 1.0. After our reassessmeuf of the evider.rce we find that the ploseculion has proved its case beyond a leasonable cloubt agairrst the appellant for the lbllorvirrg reasons keeping in view that each crinrinal case must be decided on its ou'n palticular thcts and circunrstances and eviclence ou recot'd;

(a)The FIR was delayed b)'a peliod of 3 day's hortever rvc do not consider this to be lhtal to the prosectttiott case as usually when a person goes nrissing the priority is t') sealch him out and only then if the search is unsuccessful ustrally is the FIR loclged. In this case the search was succcssl'ttl aller three days when the dead bodv \^'as recovered bv the conlplainant's telatives along rvith the itccttst (l rr lto inrmediatcly- r'eportecl the trtatlct lo the ptllice vrlricl, lt'atl to e.. tl-re FIR bcing lodged. As sttch Lrasecl otr the parlictrlirr tircts and circurnstances of this case we find that the tlelay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case. The accused u,as nanted in the FIR as accorditlg to the corrplainant the accused had suspiciorr that the tleceasetl was having illicit relations',vith the accused wif'e and hence murdered the deceased.

(b)Admittedly, thele is rro eye witness or lnst seen evidence lelating to the tnurclel of the deceased rvhich is not that surplising as the deceased rvas mutdet'ed dtrr'ing thc night tirrre rvhen it was dark.

(c)The casc against the appellant is therelbre hascd on circunrsLantial evitlence as conceded by the proscctttiot.t. With regard to cilcurnsta nt itr I evidence lcaclirrgl to a conviction irr a capital case it tvas held as uncler in l'lr')'az Ahrned V State (2017 SCMR 2026) at P.2030 para's 5 and 6 which ale reproduced as under'l

"To beliepe or rely on circum.slonlial evidence, lhe well sellled ottl deepl.t, entrenc'herl principle is, lltill it is I iutperolitc tbr the l'rosecttliutt to provide ull litths in chnin on uubrokur one, wltere orte end of llra some touches the dead body ttrtd the other lhe necA oJ' lhe occusetl. '[he present cqse is oJ such a noture v'ltet'e many linla are rnissing in the chain.

To corry ntnviclion on o Lul)il l tlturga i! is atst't'tittl tltul cot l-ts lluw t o cle e l t ly .\cr t t t tt i :,: l lt a c i tt t u n s t tt t t t t l t r r l t tt t'a t t r r

because fibricoting of suclt evidcnce is nol trrtcttttttrtott us we hove ttoliced in sonte cuscs lhus, vcr)' tttirtttlt' uttd Prrgr' 4 ol9

\ I

nfiffotv esfi,rlittfitiot, of the sonru is rtecessur.l, lo .\'ecure lhe ends ofirtstice attd thut the ))ro.secution hus lo e.tttrhli.rh the cuse beyond all reusonqble doubts, t'cslitrg ot1 cit'cumstcttltial evidence. " Reasorurble Doubt " thtL'.s ttttl nlean uryt cloubt bul it ntusl be accontpanied b1.' ,ruc'lt reasons, sdficienl to persuude a iutlicial tnind./iu' pluc'ittg, 7 relictnce on il. If il is shorl oJ srtt'lt slotulord, il is l)etlcr lo discoxl lhc same so tltttt on ittttocent person migltl ttol be sent to gollotts. 'l'o drow utt irtference of guilt froru .such evilence, the Courl hos to uppl.y its jruliciul tn,tri n'itlt deep thottghl and utillt e-rlro core tnd cuutiou ond wheneuer llrcre ore one or sorue iildicilliotts, sltotritrg lhe design of lhe Proseattiotr of mutufacturirtg ottd preporotiort of o c(se, the Cottrls have lo show reluc'lunce lo believe il unless il is jurlicitll.t'salisJied ohottt the gnill of occuserl perso ond lhe required chuin is nturla ot tvillroul ttrissittg link, olhenti.tc nl mndont reli;tttt't on such eviilcnce would result itt fuilure of jttslice.

It may olso be kepl in mincl tltal sontetime.v llte inverligctling ugency collecl,s circ untsl urtlicrl evitlence .seent.t tt1t1xtrentl.1,' believuhle hotevcr', iI lhe slrict ttttrtdords of scrtrtirt.y ore opplieil lhere wottld (ppeilr mon.s' crtcks ottd drtuhls in the same which ure ulway5 inherent lherein ttl itr tltut cose Courls have lo discord ond disbelieve lhe stute." l. (bold added)

I l. Thr.rs, keeping in vieu, the larv on circrunstantial eviderrcc rr hrt eviclence is there to link the accused to the nrrrlder ol'lhe dcceased through ln Ltnbrokerr chain of evidence.

(i)lhu- lirst linl< is the l'-ll( loclgecl iu rcspect ttrttrclc'r ol' tlte cleceased. As nrentioned above the aoutrsetl rras narned in the FIR as accorclirrg to the contplirinarrl llre accused had suspicion that the deceasecl rvas having illicit relations rvith the accused n'ile and hence murtlerecl the dcceased.

( ii) l-hc rrext lirrk is tlre ancsl rll- the accused on thr: rtu.\r dat l-5.06.0 l7 alIeI the lodging of the FIR ( 14.{)6.-l{) l7 ) on tlre pointation ol the ctrttrplainant's side. Tlrc lcettsed then conFessed ltis involventent to the crittte helirrc'the police. Although this conlession before the ptrlice is ina<lnrissible its irnportance is that he later nrade a sirnilar ctrrr I'ession beflore a.iud ic ia I rnagistlate.

(iii)The rrexl linlt is that lhr-ee days aller his rrr'tcst lltr' accrrsed lead the police tcr lhe ;;lace 'tvhetc lte hird h idtlerr 4 thc rrrobile pltotte trl'tltr' tlqceilsed allcl tttttltl('ritrq ltittr. l-hc'phone l,as retrievecl liont n p16a. rvhiclt tlrtrlt' ol the u,itnesses knerv about and rvhich only the apPellaltt could have krrown about.

(iv)'l'hc next linl< is the conl'ession which the acctrsed nrarle beltrre .iudicial nragislratc PW ,! Zahc'c-l' l lussain (rctracted at tl'ial) 'uvhich is leproduced as r.lnrle| fol' etlse of re l'et'encr'.

Judic'itrl Cott fession nttler Secliott I6 4 Cr,l'C o1 'r\sadullah Pagr: 5 of 9

2q

" Be lire 03 to 01 ntntlhs. tttt t tktto'tt'tt ;tcrstttr tt.r<'l l(t ltllottt' tttt nt.y ntrmber Ltt nigltt ul ubottt Ul to 01 ,4ilt utttl lrttt tt I Ldllel lttttt, he rlitl ttot ottencl aucl lhereufler when I uguin ltluttt<l hinr tlten l{o'i,r eldet' sort oJ nt.y tttttlentul uncle (lluttttt (ttlcttded lhe' I'hone on th number wlto tlisclosed thut tltis nttnther ltelotgs to lyor-irtllfllt kleceosel), lhe.ttottnger son o.[ ntt ntulenttl uncle ( A,I rtttto), ltrr tt,hich I nrc! the lVnsiullolt utt he rtplied 14' l.yittg s lltut he (/l/u"'ittlltt h) wn.s tttlkittg tt,ilh his Seth 1.1lu.rte r/lonl) ttt h.t, rrtisloke.rottr nutr ter wts heing dideil, .'llir'r it. tthttul 09 or l0 tlu.ys beJiru, I trus ,slcaltirtg ulier Zuhr l'ru.t'('t ttt rttr lttttrsa h.t' keeping fostirtg ontl ubtttrt itr ulientoott ut 0l:(l() l',1//, I nvts Iistettittg lhe .tpeech of fulolunu Suhilt ott tlloltilc Phone, thatt olt ot sutklen, on A dio bccnnrc on/cottlinnc lt.y nrc in wltich u ttrutt nttd fi trotto,t n'ere lnlhittg ronrutrlictll.l' (in ronmnce tttotxl). I recognize lhtrt voice in whiclt lhe sotttrl of mtn rr.ut o!'lVosiulloh sort of tttl' nrulerntl uncle nn sttttttl stttttttl rt'tt:t^ o./' tn-r wife. After it, I ltectnte s re thfll ll/ttsirtllult xttt rtJ ttt.t' nmlernd uttclc hus sttrttt illicil/tttt-tiir rcluti,ttrsltip tt,ilh ttt.y wile. At thur liue, I vus itr cr c'ondition thctr t.vlurt Lvhoulcl dtt. I wenl lo the narrot slrecl Ntrl'a pr,11 (lt'lo'ket l'luce) tnd I hottght tt dogger from lhere ond kept ttrttlct nt.l' r'uslotl.l'. I relnrnerl buck to house tnd threolane the wift'utt ulltckctl her unrl .frott ttt.l' druggcr she suslained the in.itr.r in her hund. ,-l/i?t it I lelt rrti't't'.1,.fitt lnt us.tlrc tftls l)t'c!!ttttttt ,tr,tl lltxtk lrr lrt lux;1titul. Tlrcretlier \'( t (tttt'tt('d Ltuc'k to lu,ntt' (tntl l)ttll o/l tlrc . ./ir,stittg h),eatittg tnul u.lter dlering pra.'cr. I li(l<!d tl,e nolcd ttttrtthcr on phone whitlt ll/nsinllah ltirttsell tl(ttlei (ttl I atllel hittt lt, conre u fulehur Ali Schenru ut n'hcrc lte conrc uttl , porked his lliksltotv there nnd lhen I look llir.tittllth tnd wcttl lo I'ntrol pnnrp lD, abilittg ou trt)t tttolorc.t'cle tnil t(ier lillirrg lhe 1rutrol in lhc Motorc-1'cle, I dottgtt'itlt Il'nsiulltth went t Du t nun-e-I(olt su r n,hcre I usked lVnsiullnh lltul tu.t' u'ife is.lrtut' Bhrblti in reluliort lhett wlt-y' 1'tttt pltt.l' tvi!lt her. LVosirtllult hecunte lhru cne /wottlcrcl ttt heur il trttl trierl trt rtttt tt't,.|' .li'ottr lhcre h.v tidittg ltis L'huppttl (Shoes:) tttl lttr threolcrrirtl4 Itittt I pul the hnife/drtgger on his nbdonrcn ltul tttisltkctrl.lt 111,,1 knife wenl inside in his uhtlonten he r ortce.fhllctt own. Afler it I nr.yself hectme lhrcote a otttl consciotrsnc:;s otttl pul tlte knife ot his neck orttl ltis n'hole ueck hecutna tul tlue lo titsl shtqrncss of littife ttnd hentl hc<'uurc septtrr (i /i'ttu lltc horl.1'. I tlitl cver.ltlhing on lhc ttu,u( ol ltortour ttuti I n'u.s ttrtl itt ttt-t' settc this is nt.t' stnlcntcnr'i (trold added) LeJi l hrrrrt!r I ttr1trt'';:;itttt A.tad trlluh

12.It is settled larv that a retracted .iudicial collt-essiott catl bc lc'gall,r ' admissible and used against its rnaker in certain circulnstanccs, lrr the case of' l\{uhammad Amin V'l'lre State (PLD 2006 S( 219) it w'as hu'ld irl I).114 Para 9 as under;

^ "9. There is rro cnvil to lhe proposilion lhill t'ttttt'ictittrt could hnt'e been twonled ott lhe bosis of n lruclel co,tfessiot, tul,ich proposititttr roos e-Yomi,rel in utsc ttJ' tl.Ist. Jo.1'grttt Bibi t. 'fhe Stute P[-D 1960 (SC (l'uh) .i l-l ts u,rder:- " Ll/e orc trrurhle ltt .gtppot'l tht'ltrulto.silittrt ol lttrt 'ttitl dotvn b), tlte letn'ned Juclgcs in thi.s reg,unl. I he retroctiotl o.f'ct corlfessiott i,s ct <'irc'trnt.ttant'e rhiclt lut.r Pagc 6 o[ 9

7t, 2

no bearing ,r'hat.\ocver upon tlrc qtrc.ttitut tlrcllrt itr tltc Jirst ittstance it v,as volunturil.yt mutle, cutcl ott tlrc further cluestion v,hether it i:; true, The fact that the nuker o.f the confes.sion loter docs no! adher(' lo it cannol hy ilsalf lruve art cllbcl trpon the .fitrlittlls reachecl os to 'A,helher the ctntfe.s.sion wus t'oltttllut't'. ? antl if ,ut. l,ltether il was tru! ./itr to l'ithch'utr.ii't)tn u self-accu.s'ing stl,ttenrcnl in lircc'l Joce el- rltt' consequence,, of the accusalion, is explicable Jirlly hy the proxintity of lhose conscqtrcnce.\ and need fun'e trct connection thalsoevar y,ith eiIher i!.s vtluntar'.)' ttttIttt't'. or tlrc trtilh o.f the fact,r .stutecl. Thtt learnecl ,lutlg,er rtre perfbctly t'ighl in lir.\t tleciding tlt(sc ttto que.;titttr\ tuul Ihe on,slret s being in the ullirntutit,e, in leclut'itt.u, tlttrt the con/e.s',tion by itself wtt,s ,srr/ficicnl. tuken tillr th<' ot her ./irt' t:; dnd cirt:utrtsl cul(e,\ l o,\ uPPorl .4 bdr l,l [ct i it l .r r

contticliott. The relroctiou rtf the conJessiott r'(rJ tvholly imrunteriol once il u'ns found thol il n,os voltrttlory w well fls lrue. "

10.Similurlt, in lhe cose ol tlrc Sitate v. Mittlttrtt ulius Cul Htrsscm PL,D 1961 ,S(' d/J rhi.v ('ourt ltas ob;;at t'ed us uncler: -

"Asfor lhe confes.tion.r the Higlt (ourt, it ctppcurs. tt'os duly conscious o/ tltc facl lfutl relracle(l c'onfb.tsittn t u,hether juclicial or exlra jtdicial. could legall.r he taken into consiclaration aguitt.sl lhe muker ol tlrtt.sc confes,sion,r himsell, trncl if lhr c'onf e.s,sion:; t t't'( l!)uttd lo be tnrc utd voltrnlury, llrcn tlrcre' o.t no necl ttl ,tll to look /or./irrlher cotroborolion. Il is well-sellled lltol os ogoittsl lhe mukcr himselJ'hi.t confession, jutliciul or exlra judiciol, rulrclher relructed or ,rot relractatl, ctn in law volidly form the sole bosis oJ ltis convictiorr, if the Courl is sotis./ietl tnd believes llrot il tv(s lrue and voluutotlt flnd was nol obtoined b.l' lorture or coercion or indtrce,nurl. " (hold added)

13.Tlrus. the court laicl do,ur.n a two prongccl test as undc'r.(il) u,hetlrer tlre retracted judicial conltssiorr appears to lrave been rnade voluntalill'. \\,ithoul any iuducement, duress or coel'cion and (b) was nrade with the ob.icct to state tlre trutlr.

14.The lealned counse.l tbr the appellant has corrtencled that tlrc rrppellanl rras . torhrred into rr.raking the confessiorr by the police and as such h is corr lession r,vas uot nrade voluntarily; holvever, his stance is totally belied by the tirct that the ^ appellant was brought li'onr judicial custo<ly ancl not police custotl] to nrake his coufession. Even in the appellant's Statelllent under Sectiotr .142 Cr.PC the appellant onl1, states llrc confession is talse and rrot Ihat he ryirs tttrtttt'ecl ,tr otherwise pressut'ized or coerced into making it. We flnd that thcrc is tlo evidencc that the retracted judicial confession was n()t made voluntarilt'. I'here is no evidence of coercion or lofture. The conlession was nrade a fcrt' clavs after tlre. h

I):rgt 7 ol 9

appellant \vas sellt to judicial custody orr l9'l' .lune atrd was brotrght back ll'onr .Tudicial custody on 2l June 2017 to lecolcl his conf'ession u'lriclr recordecl "r'as only 7 days after his art'est: however. thet'e is no hard and fast rtrle as to wlretr a judicial confession neecls to be rnacle. The .irrrlicial conlession a(, ;uctt lirrttt its t content also lras the object of tellirrg the truth arrtl tlts irr witlr thc plosecution case and thus we believe and place leliance or1 the l'etractecl .iLrdiciirl t'trnli'ssion ls against the accused lvho is its maker especially as we fincl that all material safeguards regarding the recording of the juclicial confession rvcrc cotnplied rvith by the nragistlate who also in his evirlerrcc cot'roborates the t':;settce of the confession.

15.To safely rely on this juclicial confession we al'e also of thc vievv that it needs to be corroborated ol strpported but othel evidence. In this lespect reliance is placecl on the case ol Muhamrnarl Isrnnil anrl others v.'I'lte Sturle (2017 SCMR 898). Such corrotrorative/su pport eviderrce is as tbllorvsl

(a)As already rnentiorretl irr tlrr. ["ll( the Ihcl llntt thc cleceasctl u,as having illicit relations with the wilc ol'the appellant.

(b)As already nrentioued the recove[y ol tltc tleceased phottc as identified by tlre conrplainant's u'ittressc's h)' the police on the pointation of thc' a;r;lellant at a plact- rvhich onlr he norr[d have knowu aboul.

(c)l'he medical evidence crlt't'oborates tltc ct,trlession that tlle cleceased was nturderecl rvith a sharp culting itrstrttntetrl ulricl.r ties in ,,vith tlre appellant buying tlte knil'e which he tused to murcler the deceaserl and which u its r'ecor. etetl al the clime scetre.

(d)l'he medical evidence also cotloborates th!- ctrtlt'ession in that that inc,isetl u'oLrucl to thc abdonte'rr urt:. tlrc Iirtal irtirrr,r accompanied by tlre cutting oll-of the hettcl t,l'Llre deceasecl.

(e)The appellarrt rvas rirling ltis ttrotot hike rrt thc titttc ol ltis arresl r,hich rvas seized b1, tlre police and also ties irr rvith his cont'ession of him using his nrottrr bike to rneet llre rlcceaserl.

(v)That there are no material contradictions in the eviderrcc ol the PW's and exhibits irnd it is rvell settlecl b1' now that nrinol contradictious whiclr clo not e.l'l'ect the nratelialitl trl'the evideuce carr bc igttotcd. Itr tlris respect rcliance is placecl on lhe case of Znl<ir Khan V State (1995 SCM]{ r7e3).

I (vi)That none of, the witnesses (who all gave their Section l6l Cr.PC' statements u,ith pronrptitude rvhiclr rrcre uot nratelialll int;roved ort at tlial) rvhether police or otherlvise had any ill lvill or urtrttitl u,itlt thc appellant and its such harl no l'easort to talsely intplicirl-' tltc a;lpellant ancl undel such circunrstances it is rvell settlecl by rl()\\ tllat ilttel lelated witncsses evidence ntust bL. lir[<en at its or.vrr i,r t,rllr artcl cauuot sinrply be discarded hrr this reas()u. [n this respect reliirncc is placecl ou the cases of Amal Sherin v 'l'lrc State (PLD 20().t SC i7l) and Dildar Ilussain v Muhammad u\lz.aal alias Chala tPLD 200J St' 663).Like rvise is tl.re position with the evidence of thc police olllcers

I

Pzr gt: I o[ 9

.a 7u

who also hacl no eurnity or ill will u,ith the appellant arrrl as such lrtrtl no reason to falsely inrplicate the appellant in a lirlse case. [.or example, by planting the deceasecl phone on the appellirnt. \4ost of rhc witnesses gave their eviclence in a straicht forward rnnrlnet'. were not dented despite a lengthy closs exanrirlation and as suclr rve b.-licve theil evideuce. With legald to us be licving the er idcn.c ol'tlre ;ioliuc -7 witness's leliance is placed on tlre case of Mushtatl ,\hrned V 'l'hc Slate (2020 SCMR 474).

(vii)The motive lor the nrulder as pel the FIR and the jrrrlicial conl'essiorr is the fact that the accused believed that the deceasecl 'urirs having illicit relations ra,itlr his wilc.

(viii)As tbl the del-ence case of Ialse irnplication sirnplicitcr thc appell.ulr did not give cvidence uncler oath antl did not call anr D t\'. rrot creu lris wife wlro lte rranres in his conlession. to support his cleli'nce case. Thus we disbelieve the defence case ill the light of the proser:uLion evidence discussed above.

16.Thus. for the rea.sorrs urentioued aboye. rr,e tlnd that the Pl'r)secuti()n has proved ut unbroken cltrtirt of evidettce, wlrer! onc encl of lhe sutnt' louches lltc dead botly and lhe other the neck of the occuse.l ttntl y,e mqintuirr lhe convictitm of the appellant.

17.With'r'egard to scntencing tlris is a casc i.rhere a )'r)Lu1g rnrrrr rrith his.uhrrlc life a head ol'lritu was rrrurdeled in a pre nreditatetl atld cold bltrt,,lutl ruauuer. hr fact the trurder was ol'the rlost brutzrl nrannel whereb-i ali.r srirbbing tlrc deceased in tlre chest with his knife the accused then proceeded to r:ut ofl'his head from his body with his knit-e. We can lnailltain lhe death penaltv in cases such as this which are trased on r: ilctunslant ial evidence. In this respect rcliirnce is placccl on the case ot'IVluhanrrucd Amjad V State (l,,l.D 20U3 SC 704t. Srrch blLrralir_r cannot be cotrdotred utrcler any circurnstances irnd as srrch $_1 nirl rrl tlelerlenl [o those who are inclined Lo carry out the nrost bltrtal of murders rvc he rcby nraintain the death sentence imposed ou the appellant.

18.The appeal is clisrnissc'd artd lhe conlrlnrlrtjtrn lefl'r'cuce r.; rrrr;r,.erctl ir.r tlrr: affirnratirre.

I)

W

(-'i

^ .tu Gri

Pagt: 9 o[ 9