AMANULLAH vs STATE
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Yasin Khan. The petitioner, initially sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge/District Qazi Swat, had his sentence modified to life imprisonment by the High Court, while maintaining the conviction. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained based on a confessional statement when the petitioner alleged procedural irregularities in its recording, disputed the recovery of the crime weapon, and argued the occurrence was un-witnessed. The Supreme Court examined the record and noted that the High Court had already addressed these contentions, finding the confession corroborated by motive, the recovery of pellets from the deceased, the petitioner's five-year absconsion, and the report of a firearm expert. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were sound and declined to re-appraise the evidence. The petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that a confession corroborated by independent evidence is sufficient for conviction.
- Is a confessional statement sufficient to sustain a conviction when corroborated by motive, absconsion, and forensic evidence?
- Does the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence in a criminal petition when the lower courts have reached concurrent findings?
- Can a conviction be maintained if the recovery of the crime weapon is disputed but other corroborative evidence exists?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Ch. ljaz Ahmed, J.--The petitioner was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death alongwith 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 sentenced was altered to life imprisonment with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. The direction for compensation was maintained.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that presence of PW4, 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. 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 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 Arm expert. In view of concurrent conclusions of the learned Courts, we do not find it a fit case for re-appraisal of the evidence.
4. 5.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Leave refused.