MUHAMMAD IRFAN vs Rana MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others
This petition for leave to appeal challenges the acquittal of the respondent, Rana Muhammad Afzal, by the High Court in a murder case involving his wife, Zulekha alias Nainan. The petitioner, the brother of the deceased, sought to overturn the acquittal, relying primarily on an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the respondent to a police officer and an affidavit of forgiveness executed by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the High Court's acquittal was legally or factually infirm based on the evidence presented. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquittal was sound. The Court reasoned that the alleged extra-judicial confession was inadmissible because it was made to a police officer, and further noted that courts generally do not consider it safe to base a conviction solely on extra-judicial confessions. Additionally, the Court rejected the argument that an affidavit of forgiveness implied a confession of guilt, labeling such a submission fallacious. The judgment reaffirms the principle that extra-judicial confessions to police officers are inadmissible and insufficient as the sole basis for conviction.
- Is an extra-judicial confession made in the presence of a police officer admissible in evidence?
- Can a conviction be safely based solely on an extra-judicial confession?
- Does an affidavit of forgiveness by a complainant imply a confession of guilt by the accused?
- Section 308(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- Rana Muhammad Afzal respondent was tried and convicted by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore vide judgment dated 7-2-2000 and sentenced to suffer ten years' R.I. As Tazir under section 308(2), P.P.C. The deceased in the present case was the wife of the said Rana Muhammad Afzal. The Honourable High Court on appeal set aside the said conviction and punishment and acquitted Afzal convict of the said charge.
2. The petitioner before us is the brother of Zulekha alias Nainan deceased who impugns the said acquittal recorded in favor of the said accused-respondent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length who has not been able to point out any factual or legal infirmity in the impugned acquittal with which the respondent was blessed by the High Court. It is not denied that the killing of Zulekha deceased had gone un- witnessed as none had seen anyone murdering the said deceased. Reliance by the learned Advocate Supreme Court is placed on the statement of Rana Muhammad Lateef (P.W.5) who claimed that Rana Muhammad Afzal had come to him and had made a confession of his guilt in the matter of the said murder. The other witness of the said extra-judicial confession namely Naeem Irshad, Advocate (P.W.4) had however, refused to support the prosecution case. The heavy reliance on the said testimony of P.W.5 is misplaced for more than one reasons. Firstly because he is a Police Officer and a confession made in presence of a Police Officer is not admissible and secondly because the Courts of law have never considered it safe to base a conviction only on an extrajudicial confession. Reliance was next placed on Exh.D.D., .Which is an affidavit of Muhammad Irfan petitioner forgiving the respondent Rana Muhammad Afzal, from which the learned Advocate Supreme Court wishes us to conclude that the accused having sought pardon had impliedly confessed his guilt. This submission to say the least, is fallacious.
4. Having examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
Leave to .