TARIQ IQBAL @ TARIQ vs THE STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the death sentence awarded to the petitioner for the murder of the complainant's wife. The case against the petitioner, a milk seller, rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the crime weapon and robbed articles, as well as an alleged judicial confession. Upon hearing the arguments, the petitioner's counsel did not press the petition on merits but sought leave to appeal specifically regarding the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that because the conviction relied solely on circumstantial evidence and the death penalty is an irreversible punishment, the court must exercise abundant caution. The Supreme Court held that it is necessary to re-adjudicate the circumstantial evidence to determine if the death penalty was appropriate, particularly given the significant delay between the petitioner's arrest and his judicial confession, the timing of the recoveries after prolonged police custody, and the inconsistencies regarding the timing of an alleged extra-judicial confession.
- Does a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence require a re-evaluation of the quantum of sentence even if the conviction is not challenged on merits?
- Is a delay of fifteen days between an arrest and a judicial confession a relevant factor in determining the appropriateness of a death sentence?
- Does the recovery of incriminating articles after two weeks of police custody necessitate a review of the sentence in a circumstantial evidence case?
ORDER
' TARIQ PARVEZ, J.--- Short facts of the case are that on 16-10-2004, Muhammad Ashraf Sindhu, Advocate, reported the crime of the murder of his wife Akhtar Bibi without charging any person but narrated in his report that some one has murdered his wife and has taken away cash amount, gold ornaments and other valuables.
2. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on 3-11-2004, who was milk seller. It was the case of the prosecution that on 15-11-2004, petitioner led to the recovery of the crime weapon and also, on his pointation, the robbed articles were recovered from his house. On 18-11- 2004, petitioner was alleged to have made judicial confession.
3. Learned trial Court on conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 26-1-2006, awarded death sentence which was confirmed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, vide impugned judgment dated 26-10-2011, hence instant petition for leave to appeal.
4. Learned counsel after arguing the case at some length opted not to press instant petition on merits but prayed for the' grant of leave to appeal to the extent of quantum of sentence.
5. Petition is allowed and leave is granted to consider the quantum of sentence because this case is based on circumstantial evidence and death being irreversible sentence, out of abundant caution such circumstantial evidence has to be re-adjudged to determine as to whether:--
(i) In the given circumstances, sentence of death was called for because petitioner was arrested on 3-11-2004 whereas his confessional statement was recorded on 18-11-2004 with a delay of 15 days?
(ii) Petitioner is alleged to have led to recovery of crime weapon and robbed articles on 15-11- 2004, after he remained in the police custody for 2 weeks?
(iii) There is also an allegation that petitioner made extra judicial confession before Falak Sher (P.
W.21) and Muhammad Akram (P. W.22) on 23-10-2004. If a person has volunteered to make extra judicial confession then as to why his judicial confession was delayed until 18-11-2004?
Leave to .