MEHRBAN vs MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the complainant's appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. The respondent had been tried by the Sessions Judge, Sargodha, for the murder of Sultan Ali and was subsequently acquitted. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's decision to uphold the acquittal was legally sound, specifically regarding the sufficiency of evidence. Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution's case relied solely on an alleged extra-judicial confession made before two prosecution witnesses, which the respondent denied. The Court found no other material evidence linking the respondent to the commission of the offence. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the reasons provided for the acquittal were valid and cogent, and there was no justification for judicial interference. The petition for leave to appeal was refused, thereby affirming the acquittal. The judgment reinforces the principle that an extra-judicial confession, standing alone without corroborative evidence, is insufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case.
- Is an extra-judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder in the absence of other corroborative evidence?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a High Court?
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMED. J.----Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 20-12-1999 of the High Court whereby the appeal filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the-respondent was dismissed.
2. The respondent was tried by the leaned Sessions Judge, Sargodha fur having committed the murder of Sultan Ali and was acquitted vide judgment dated 16-6-1999.
3. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and with his assistance gone through the record of the case. We have noticed that the only circumstances against the respondent was the alleged extra-judicial confession made before Muhammad Saleem, P.W.7 and Muhammad Aslam.
P.W.S. Which was denied by the respondent. There is no other material to connect the respondent with the commission of the offence. The reasons advanced for acquittal of the respondent are valid and cogent. There is no material justifying interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is thus refused and the petition is dismissed.