AMJAD HUSSAIN vs STATE and another
The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the alleged murder of the deceased, whose decomposed body was discovered and later identified by his father. The core legal question was whether reasonable grounds existed for further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the weak evidentiary value of the complainant's unsupported suspicion and the delayed extra-judicial confession. The Lahore High Court held that the complainant's statement lacked disclosure of the source of knowledge and that the extra-judicial confession, rendered after a two-day silence by the witnesses, was the weakest type of evidence. The court concluded that the case called for further probe and granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that an extra-judicial confession is weak evidence easily maneuvered, and unexplained delays in reporting such confessions by witnesses cast serious doubt on their veracity, bringing the case within the scope of further inquiry for bail purposes.
- Whether an extra-judicial confession is considered weak evidence when determining post-arrest bail?
- Does an unexplained delay by witnesses in reporting an extra-judicial confession cast doubt on its veracity?
- When does a criminal case attract the provisions of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The complainant, Israr-ul-Haq was informed by Nazir Ahmad and Munir Ahmad about presence of a dead body, packed in a shopping bag, in front of their house whereon he along with them went to the spot and found the dead body of an unknown male person, which was at advanced stage of decomposition, hence unidentifiable.
2. One Maqbool Ahmad joined investigation on 05.08.2012 and he identified the said dead body as that of his son Imran Ahmad, at the mortuary, Nishtar Hospital, Multan. He presented a written application before the Investigating Officer whereby he contended that he was of firm belief that his son Imran Ahmad was murdered, by Amjad Hussain, the petitioner.
3. A team of three witnesses, Saeed Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Mushtaq joined investigation on 10.11.2012 and rendered statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. With the contentions that Muhammad Amjad accused-petitioner had approached Saeed Ahmad at his baithak in presence of the other witnesses on 08.11.2012 and admitted to have murdered Imran Ahmad (deceased) under a conspiracy so that he could swindle some amount of money from his family members.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is found that Maqbool Ahmad, real father of Imran Ahmad deceased showed his firm belief in his written application, he presented, before the Investigating Officer on 05.08.2012. Against jad Hussain accused-petitioner by contending that it was he who had murdered his son. He did not disclose the source through which he acquired the knowledge, as to culpability of the accused-petitioner in this case. The witnesses of extra judicial confession, Saeed Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Mushtaq were allegedly approached by the accused on 08.11.2012 to admit his guilt and seek their help in the A matter, but they did not disclose this fact immediately to the. Investigating Officer or the complainant and they remained tight lipped for two long days, which reflected on the veracity of their assertions, as to admission of guilt by the accused before them. It has been held time and again that extra judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence which can easily be mancouvered by the prosecution wherever direct connecting evidence does not come their way.
So far as recovery of cell phone of the deceased on 13.12.2012 at the instance of the petitioner is concerned, its evidentiary value may better be assessed by the learned trial Court after recording evidence of the parties during trial, The Investigating Officer however did not prepare a memo. Of identification in this regard. There is no other evidence on the record which may incriminate the petitioner in this case. There exist sufficient reasons to believe that the petitioner's case constitutes need for further probe into his guilt, within the scope of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly, this application is allowed and petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
5. Before parting with this order, it is underlined that observations contained hereinabove are of tentative nature which would have no bearing upon the merits of the case at trial.
Cited by 1 case
- Mirza KHAN ASI & others vs STATE and others 2017 PLJ Lahore 765