MUHAMMAD KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The matter arose from an unwitnessed occurrence where a dead body was discovered with firearm injuries, and the First Information Report was lodged against unknown persons. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—specifically the extra-judicial confession, last-seen evidence, and alleged recoveries—was sufficient to sustain a conviction on a capital charge. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The court found the recoveries doubtful, noting that recovery memos were prepared improperly, and rejected the credibility of the extra-judicial confession and last-seen testimony. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The key principle laid down is that in cases resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must be of high quality and standard, and every link in the chain must be clearly established; suspicion or shaky evidence cannot support a capital conviction.
- Can a conviction for a capital charge be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence where the chain of evidence is incomplete?
- Does the preparation of recovery memos on a date different from the actual recovery render the evidence unreliable?
- Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient for conviction when the surrounding circumstantial evidence is shaky and doubtful?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.66-J of 2000 filed by the appellant through Jail against the judgment, dated 8-4-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha, whereby he convicted the appellants under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment as Tazir. He was further directed to pay Rs.30,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default to undergo six months R.I. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs.20,000 as fine or in default to undergo three years R.I.
2. The occurrence in this case took place on 6-2-1999 in the area o1 Mauza Moazzam Abad within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Moman at a distance of 14 k.m. Towards west from the Police Station.
3. The facts in brief, as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R., are that Chowkidar Naja of village Moazzam Abad was informed by one Fazal Hussain that a dead body was present on the bank of Rajbah so he went there and found the dead body lying there. There was fire-arm injury on the dead body. He lodged the F.I.R., Exh.P.F,
4. After completing necessary formalities Salabat Khan S.I., went to the spot. He took into possession blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.A., prepared injury statement Exh.P.E./1 and that of inquest report Exh.P.E. One empty cartridge was also recovered from the spot which was taken into possession by the S. I. Vide memo. Exh.P.H.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 13 witnesses including, Doctor, I.O. And other P.Ws. Muhammad Nazir, Najabat, Muhammad A.I and Haji Manak P.Ws. Were given up by the prosecution as being unnecessary. Repoit of Serologist, Exh.P.Q. And report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.R. Were also produced by the prosecution. Thereafter, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded not guilty.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, nobody was named in the F.I.R., no motive has been given, even by the father of the deceased. She further submits that the recoveries of gun, ring, P.7 and Rs.2,000 have been planted on the appellant. That no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Muhammad Khan P.W.9 about extra judicial confession, that no reliance can be placed on the statement of last seen and that of extra judicial confession. She submits that deceased was a person of bad character and according to the cross-examination of P.W.1 namely Sajjad Ahmad H.C. He was involved in different criminal cases.
7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, that -the evidence in this case is of shaky nature..
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case dead body of the deceased was found by the complainant who informed the police. Nobody was named in the F.I.R., no motive has been given by the complainant himself. Recoveries in this case are doubtful because according to the statement of P.W.12, Munir Ahmad, the recovery memo. Was prepared on the day when the statement of said Munir Ahmad was recorded by the trial Court. The signature of Munir Ahmad and the other witnesses Haji Manak (given up P.W.) were also obtained on the said day, so no reliance can be placed on these recoveries. It does not appeal to reason that when a person commits a murder,. Gets the golden ring from the body of the deceased and takes Rs.2,000 from pocket of the deceased, why will he keep the same for one and a half month with him. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Every chain of circumstantial evidence should be linked with each other. In the present case those are missing. Even it has come on record during the cross- examination of P. W.1 that deceased was not a man of good character. He was involved in many cases. To convict a person on a capital charge evidence should be of very high quality and good standard which is not present in this case. Even learned state counsel has not supported the prosecution case and he is right in doing so. After going through the evidence available on the record and hearing the submissions made by both the parties, I am not satisfied with the prosecution case against the appellant. In this view of the matter, I accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court. He shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.