MUHAMMAD KARIM Versus STATE
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 302/34, P. P. C., for the murder of Mst. Jamala. The core legal question was whether the prosecution evidence, including a judicial confession, last-seen evidence, recoveries, and a false first information report lodged by the appellant, was sufficient to sustain his conviction. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution evidence was indeed sufficient, noting that the retracted judicial confession was voluntary and truthful, supported by recoveries of blood-stained articles at the appellant's instance, the abscondence of co-accused, and corroborative testimony regarding motive. The key principle laid down is that a retracted judicial confession, when found voluntary and corroborated by reliable circumstantial evidence such as recoveries and the conduct of the accused, forms a sufficient basis for a criminal conviction.
- Whether a retracted judicial confession can be relied upon for conviction if duly corroborated?
- Is the evidence of last seen together, coupled with a false first information report and recoveries, sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code
ARAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑ This appeal by leave of this Court, by Muhammad Karim son of Fazal Karim, is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 9‑6‑1976, upholding his conviction under section 302/34, P. P. C.
2. The F. I. R. in this case was lodged by Muhammad Karim appellant himself at Police Station Tangi, District Peshawar on 18‑2‑1973, at about 8 a. m. The story that he gave out in this report was that on the preceding day, he and Mv. Jamala (deceased) had gone to the house of Mst. Zaitoon (sister of the deceased) in village Harichand and that later, after taking tea in the afternoon, they left her (Mst. Zaitoon's) house with a view to go to village Spin Khara but when they reached the lands of that village at about sunset time, four armed persons came out of a ditch. Two persons caught hold of Mst. Jamala (deceased) and the other two caught hold of him. Thereafter, these two persons threw Mst. Jamala deceased on the ground and slaughtered her with a knife ; that after killing her, the aforesaid four persons went away from the spot and that thereafter he went over to Mst. Jamala, but found that she was dead. He stated further in the said report that he did not know about the enmity of the deceased with any one.
3. This set the police machinery in motion and Shahbaz Khan, S. H. O. went to the place of occurrence along with some police constables. Mst. Zaitoon (P. W. 8) the sister of the deceased also came to know of the murder and reached the spot at 11‑ 30 a. m. where the dead body of Mst. Jamala was lying. She (Mst. Zaitoon) accused Muhammad Karim appellant as well as Lai Zarif and Tor Gul for the murder of Mst. Jamala. The police, therefore, started investigation on that line and arrested Muhammad Karim accused‑appellant. The other two co‑accusad could not be arrested as they had absconded after the occurrence. While in custody Muhammad Karim appellant led the police party to the recovery of his blood‑stained cap (Exh. P. 5 ) and weapon of offence i. e. the knife (Exh. P. 6) which were hidden at different places. Subsequently the blood on these articles was found by the Serologist to be of human origin.
The appellant also made a judicial confession (Exh. P. Z./1) before a Magistrate in which he told the story as to how he and his two co‑accused (absconders) had planned the murder, He disclosed that it was decided that he (the appellant) would take Mst. Jamala to the house of her sister Mst. Zaitoon in Harichand and that on the return journey in the evening his two co‑accused would kill her. He accordingly took the deceased to the house of her sister from where he returned in the evening. When they reached the place of occurrence the two co‑accused turned up and caught hold of Mst. Jamala. The appellant covered her mouth with his cap to prevent her from making noise. Lai Zarif secured her hands and Tor Gul slaughtered her with knife. They then dragged her dead body from the path and threw it away on one side. Thereafter, Tor Gul buried his knife in the sand and threw the cap in a cave/hole (from where these articles were later got recovered by the appellant). He also stated that they had planned that the appellant should himself inform the police about the murder and say that she (deceased) had been murdered by some unknown persons in the way.
The motive for the occurrence is stated to be that Mst. Jamala (deceased) used to keep all her money in custody of Lai Zarif co‑accused and when she started demanding the money Lai Zarif who was unable to pay it, and planned to do away with the help of the appellant and Tor Gul (who was married to the niece of Lai Zarif).
3. At the trial the prosecution relied, inter alia, on the aforementioned judicial confession; the statement of Mst. Zaitoon; the evidence of the deceased having been last seen alive together with the judicial confession and the false report lodged by the appellant himself with the police, as well as the recovery, of the blood‑stained cap and knife at his pointing out.
4. The appellant, however, pleaded innocence and retracted from his judicial confession. The learned trial Court believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant under section 302/34, P. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On appeal the High Court maintained his conviction and upheld the sentence.
The appellant filed a petition for leave to appeal through jail whereupon leave was granted on 27‑3‑1977, to consider whether the prosecution evidence in this case was sufficient for convicting the appellant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the record. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the two Courts below and feel that the prosecution evidence on the record was sufficient to sustain the appellant's conviction. Mst. Jamalal was admittedly last seen alive in the company of Muhammad Karim appellant, who had brought her to the police that she had been murdered in the way by some unknown person who had first taken her to one side. Subsequently he admitted his guilt before a Magistrate in a judicial confession, which was recorded after the learned Magistrate had fully satisfied himself that he was making the statement voluntarily.
The appellant also got the blood‑stained cap and the blood‑stained knife recovered from the places where they were hidden, which shows that he bad full knowledge of the same although he made no mention of it in the F. I. R. lodged by him. No doubt the appellant retracted from his judicial confession but we are convinced, in view of the statement of Mr. Ahmed Din Khan, P. W. 9, the learned Magistrate who recorded it that is true and can be safely relied upon as giving the correct version of the incident. Moreover, it is corroborated not only by the recovery of the aforementioned blood‑stained articles at the instance of the appellant but also by the fact that the two co-accused Lal Zarif and Tor Gul had absconded. The motive has been explained by Mst. Zaitoon P. W. (sister of the deceased), who had no reason to involve the appellant and his co‑accused falsely.
On the above discussion we do no consider this a fit case for interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
S. Q. Appeal dismissed.