AMANULLAH vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the murder of Yasin Khan. The petitioner was initially sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, with the High Court subsequently altering the sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the conviction could be sustained solely on a confessional statement, the validity of the recovery of the crime weapon, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction given the petitioner's arguments regarding the witness's presence and the timing of the confession. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the record, found that the High Court had provided cogent reasons for rejecting these contentions. The Court held that the conviction was properly maintained based on the confessional statement, which was corroborated by the established motive, the recovery of pellets from the deceased, the petitioner's five-year absconsion, and the report of the Fire-arms Expert. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, declining to reappraise the evidence due to the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Can a conviction be sustained on a confessional statement if it is corroborated by other evidence such as motive and forensic reports?
- Does the Supreme Court typically reappraise evidence when there are concurrent findings of guilt by the lower courts?
- Is a delay of four days between arrest and the recording of a confession sufficient to invalidate the confession?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The petitioner was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death along with compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer 2 years' S.I. For the murder of Yasin Khan vide judgment, dated 15-10-2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge! District Qazi, Swat. Benefit of section 382-B was also extended to the petitioner-convict. His conviction was maintained by the learned High Court but the sentence was altered to life imprisonment with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. The direction for compensation was maintained.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that P.W.4, Mst. Bakht Meena was not present at the place of occurrence and her statement was not believed by the learned High Court as is evident from para.9 of the impugned judgment. That confessional statement of the petitioner was recorded without observing legal formalities. That the recovery of crime weapon at the instance of the petitioner has become doubtful because in the confession he has mentioned that the crime gun was recovered earlier by the police two years after the occurrence and the present gun sent with the crime-empty was not the crime gun and this fact was not considered by the Courts below in its true perspective. That occurrence is un-witnessed and the confessional statement only is not sufficient to convict the petitioner for commission of the offence. The petitioner was arrested on 14- 9-2003 and his confessional statement was recorded allegedly on 18-9-2003 after 4 days and this fact was not considered by the Courts below in its true perspective.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
4. We have considered the submissions and have carefully gone through the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same contentions which were raised before the learned High Court which were rejected with cogent reasons as is evident from paras.12 to 15 of the impugned judgment. The learned High Court maintained the A conviction on the basis of the confessional statement of the petitioner which was found to have been corroborated by the motive, recovery of the pallets from the dead body, noticeable absconsion for five years and report of the Fire-arms Expert. In view of concurrent conclusions of the learned Courts, we do not find it a fit case for reappraisal of the evidence.
5. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.