MUHAMMAD DILAWAR KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioners, convicted under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the Anti-Terrorist Court and sentenced to death, challenged the High Court's dismissal of their appeals. The core legal questions concern the evidentiary value of delayed witness statements and judicial confessions, as well as the procedural validity of the accused's examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners contended that the prosecution's case was weakened by a five-month delay in recording the statements of the only two eyewitnesses and by the fact that judicial confessions were recorded ten days post-arrest. Furthermore, they argued that the trial court failed to properly record the accused's statements or evaluate the defense version in juxtaposition with the prosecution's evidence, thereby causing prejudice. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine these contentions and to conduct a re-appraisal of the evidence. The holding establishes that such procedural and evidentiary lapses warrant a deeper judicial review to ensure the conviction meets the required standards of criminal justice.
- Does a five-month delay in recording eyewitness statements inherently undermine the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal effect of recording judicial confessions ten days after the arrest of the accused?
- Does a failure to record the statement of the accused in accordance with Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a fatal procedural error?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioners were convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. By the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorist Court No.7 and sentenced to death and each of the petitioners was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000 or in default to undergo R.I. For two years. The petitioners filed appeals against the said conviction and sentence before the High Court but their appeals have been dimissed and their conviction and sentence have been upheld vide judgment, dated 14-1999.
2. According to the case of the prosecution against the petitioners, on 4-7-1998 the complainant in the case, Musair Akram, received message from his nice that his brother, Zuhair Akram Nadeem, had received fire-arm injuries. He rushed to his house where he found that his family members had already left for Abbasi Shaheed Hospital. On enquiry the complainant learnt that while his brother was inspecting construction work on a plot in Orangi Town at about 12-30 p.m., he was attacked and killed by some unknown persons.
3: Learned counsel for the petitioners have inter alia, argued that, statements of the only two eye- witnesses in the case namely, Naimuddin Qureshi and Liaquat Samo, were recorded by the police on 5-12-1998 which was after a delay of about five months after the date of occurrence. Secondly, judicial confessions are shown to have been made by the petitioners but admittedly, the same were recorded ten days after the arrest of the petitioners. It has been further argued that statements of the accused were not recorded in accordance with the provisions of section 342, Cr.P.C. And the learned Courts below have also failed to examine the defense version in juxtaposition to the prosecution case. Therefore, the same, according to the learned counsel, has caused prejudice to the accused.
4. We grant leave to the petitioners to examine the said contentions and also to re-appraise evidence in the case.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Zakir vs Muhammad Faisal 2022 SHC 78, 2022 MLD 738
- MUHAMMAD ZAKIR Versus MUHAMMAD FAISAL 2022 MLD 874