JAVED MASIH and 3 others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the convictions of the petitioners by the Federal Shariat Court for offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioners were convicted for the murder of three security guards by electrocution and the subsequent robbery of deposit certificates and other valuables. The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries of stolen items and a confession by one of the petitioners that implicated the others. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the convictions could be sustained in the absence of eye-witness testimony, particularly when the confession relied upon was alleged to be exculpatory and the recoveries were contested. Upon reviewing the arguments, the Court held that given the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the nature of the confession, a re-appraisal of the evidence was necessary for the proper administration of criminal justice. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the convictions based on the available evidence.
- Can a conviction be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence and a confession without eye-witness testimony?
- Is a confession that is exculpatory in nature sufficient to implicate co-accused persons?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal to re-appraise evidence in a criminal case?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17(4), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioners have been convicted by the Federal Shariat Court under section 302/34, P.P.C. And under section 17(4) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The incident occurred in the night of 12 and 13-8-1988, when Turab Gul, Zahid Noor and Haji Muhammad Ayub, Chowkidars of the building were murdered by the petitioner by electrocuting them. Report was also lodged and on investigation it was found that `Khan Deposit Certificates' valuing Rs30 lacs and another lot of Ithas Deposit Certificates' of Rs,20 lacs were robbed besides other articles comprising of watches, ball pen points and lighters. The particular of such items was furnished by P.W. Rajab Ali and P.W. Shamim Ahmed Siddiqui. According to the petitioner No,1, he was arrested on 15-8-1988 while the other were arrested on 21-8-1988. `Khas Deposit Certificates' of Rs,50 lacs and cash amount of R4.17,000 were recovered from petitioner No,2. Similarly, cash and watches were also recovered from petitioners Nos.3 and 4. Besides this, from petitioner No,1, Seiko watches, blood-stained `Shalwar Qamiz', a cassette entitled `Bekhr-e- Moti' were recovered. Petitioner No,4 made confession and inculpated the other petitioners.
2. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the confession made by petitioner No,4 was exculpatory in nature and could not be relied upon for convicting petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 3. He has also challenged the recovery and arrest of the petitioners. The significant aspect of the case is that there is no eye-witness of the incident. The entire prosecution is based on the confession, recovery and circumstantial evidence. In these circumstances for proper administration of criminal justice, it would be necessary to re-appraise the evidence. We, therefore, grant leave.