MOHIM KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Mohim Khan, for the murder of Abdul Ghafoor. The core legal questions concern the reliability of a judicial confession and the appropriateness of the death penalty in light of the circumstances surrounding the crime. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution case was honest, noting that the complainant initially suspected another individual, and the appellant's implication arose during the investigation. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relying on a judicial confession recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which had been concurrently accepted by the trial and appellate courts. However, the Court determined that the deceased had previously acted improperly by entering the appellant's house armed, which contributed to the motive for the crime. Consequently, the Court held that the extreme penalty of death was not warranted. The death sentence was set aside and substituted with imprisonment for life, with the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, granted to the appellant.
- Is a judicial confession recorded under Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sufficient to sustain a conviction when it has been concurrently accepted by lower courts?
- Does the existence of a prior improper act by the deceased justify the commutation of a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to a sentence of imprisonment for life?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---Nothing exists on record which could even remotely indicate that Mohim Khan appellant had been implicated in this case on account of any previous enmity or on account of any dishonest motive. The occurrence in question had obviously gone un-witnessed.
The honesty of the prosecution case is reflected by the fact that the complainant had, through the F.I.R. Lodged by him. Initially laid suspicion on one Shahnawaz and it was during the course of investigation that it transpired that the murder in question had been committed by Mohim appellant. He made a confessional statement before Mr. Shakil Ahmed, the learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.6) which confessional statement had been examined, tested and then trusted by the two learned Courts i,e, by the trial Court and the High Court.
2. We have gone through the record and have also re-considered the worth and the validity of the said confession made under section 164, Cr.P.C. And could not find any reason which could justify our deviation from the concurrent conclusions drawn by the said two Courts vis-a-vis the said confession. The same rings true and sounds believable. The said conviction recorded against Mohim appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. Is therefore maintained.
3. From the same judicial confession, it transpires that Abdul Ghafoor deceased had, two or three months prior to the present occurrence, surreptitiously entered the house of the appellant at about midnight but had then run away when the inmates of the house had woken up; that the appellant had not said anything to the said deceased at that time because the deceased was then armed with a Kalashnikov and the appellant was empty handed and that it was on account of the said grouse that Mohim appellant had ultimately caused the murder of the deceased. It thus appears that it was some immoral or improper act of C the deceased himself which had led or had at least contributed to his ultimate murder.: In the circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of the normal penalty of death on the appellant is not warranted. The said sentence of death is, therefore, set aside and instead he is directed to suffer a sentence of imprisonment for life on the said charge. He shall be allowed the benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
4. This appeal is disposed of in the above terms: Sentence reduced.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAKEEL KHAN Versus State 2017 YLRN 147