MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and confirmed his death sentence awarded by a Special Court under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The prosecution relied primarily on an extra-judicial confession made to the petitioner's superior officer and another witness, along with forensic matching of a recovered rifle to a crime empty. The petitioner contended that the extra-judicial confession before a person in authority was inadmissible due to potential influence, that the witnesses' conduct cast doubt on the confession, and that the prosecution's failure to account for all recovered empties rendered the corroborating forensic recovery doubtful. Finding that the points raised concerning the admissibility and reliability of the extra-judicial confession and the integrity of the corroborative evidence warranted comprehensive re-appraisal, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
- Whether an extra-judicial confession made by an employee before his superior officer in authority is admissible without establishing that it was free from influence?
- Whether withholding one of multiple recovered crime empties from forensic examination casts doubt on the recovery evidence used to corroborate a capital charge?
- Whether conviction on a capital charge can be sustained solely on extra-judicial confession when corroborative recovery and motive evidence are disputed?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
ORDER
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.‑‑ ‑This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14‑3‑2002 passed by a Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which Criminal Appeal No.1179 of 2000 and Murder Reference No.459‑T of 2000 have been disposed of.
2. The Special Court No.1, Gujranwala, established under Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, tried the petitioner for the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C. for the allegation of committing the murder of one Muhammad Ashraf, and having found him guilty of the charge convicted and sentenced him to death. The High Court by dismissing his appeal, confirmed the death sentence awarded to the petitioner by the trial Court.
3. The occurrence in the present case took place on 4‑7‑1998 at 4‑45 a.m. in the area of Mona Depot Farm situated at a distance of 4 miles from Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Bahauddin. Nisar Ahmed (P.W.7) father of Muhammad Ashraf, deceased, on receipt of information about the murder of his son, reached at the place of murder and lodged the report to the police. During investigation, Muhammad Arif petitioner while seeking help of Shabbir Ahmed (P.W.5) disclosed his guilt before him on 1‑8‑1998 and then while appearing before Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) Maqbool Hussain Khokhar, Deputy Commandant Mona Depot Farm (P.W.10) on 6‑8‑1998 confessed that he committed the murder of Muhammad Ashraf. The crime empty recovered from the place of occurrence was found matched with .8 MM Rifle subsequently recovered from the accused. The motive for the occurrence disclosed by the accused in his confessional statement was that deceased had illicit liaison with an unmarried girl residing in his neighbour, which he could not tolerate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner being employed in Mona Depot Farm was subordinate to Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) Maqbool Hussain Khokhar, therefore, the alleged confession before a person of authority, being not be, free from influence, would not be admissible and that non‑disclosure of Shabbir Ahmed (P.W.5) regarding the confessing of guilt by the petitioner before him, prior to his making confession before Lt.‑Col. (Retd.) Maqbool Hussain Khokhar, would create a serious doubt in truthfulness of the evidence of extra‑judicial confession. Learned counsel added that according to P.W.6, father of deceased, the Investigating Officer collected two crime empties from the spot in his presence whereas only one crime empty was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory and the withholding of one crime empty by the Investigating Officer would make the evidence of recovery of doubtful character to be used as independent source of corroboration. The learned counsel argued that with the exclusion of evidence of recovery and motive which were not confidence inspiring to be believed, the conviction on the capital charge on the basis of sole evidence of extra‑judicial confession, a weak type of evidence, would not be sustainable.
5. The contentions raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition requiring examination, we find it a fit case for re‑appraisal of evidence. Leave is, accordingly, granted.
N.H.Q./M‑655/S Leave granted.