HABIB ULLAH and 2 others vs THE STATE
This is a post-arrest bail application concerning an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were accused of murdering the complainant's son, whose body was discovered two days after he went missing. The prosecution's case relied solely on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the petitioners to certain witnesses nine to ten months after the occurrence. The core legal question was whether these delayed and uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions constituted sufficient incriminating material to deny bail. The Court held that the evidence was prima facie tainted, noting the extreme improbability that the petitioners would confess to witnesses after such a long delay, and that the witnesses themselves remained silent for ten months before approaching the police. Consequently, the Court determined the petitioners' case was one of further inquiry and admitted them to bail. The key principle laid down is that extra-judicial confessions, when made after a significant, unexplained delay and followed by prolonged silence from the witnesses, are inherently weak and insufficient to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of bail.
- Does a significant delay in reporting an alleged extra-judicial confession to the police render the evidence insufficient for denying bail?
- Can a case based solely on extra-judicial confessions made long after the occurrence be considered a matter of further inquiry?
- Is the evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession diminished when witnesses remain silent for months after the alleged confession?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 201, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' This is bail after-arrest application in case F.I.R. No,63 of 2001, dated 17-4-2001, under sections 302/201/34, P.P.C. Of Police Station Noorpur, District Khushab.
2. According to the prosecution allegations set out in the F.I.R. Lodged by Sher Alam Khan complainant on 15-4-2001, his son Asmatullah Khan aged 19/20 years left his house for Isha prayer and thereafter he did not return home. A search was conducted and then on 17-4-2001 at 8-00 a.m. The dead body of Asmatullah Khan was found lying within the precinct of Government Degree College of Noorpur and consequently the complainant lodged this F.I.R. By alleging that some unknown assailants had murdered his son and had thrown his dead body in a dry well.
3. Initially the investigations in this case were conducted and this case was filed as untraced. The petitioners had earlier been joined in the police investigations by various Police Officers and they were found to be not involved in the occurrence. However, on 29-7-2003 Shafqat Ullah, D.S.P.
Recorded statements of four P.Ws. Namely Khurshid, Ghulam Muhammad Ghulam Qadir and Majeed, who all stated that about 9/10 months ago, the petitioners came to them and confessed to have killed Asmat Ullah Khan deceased on account of some monetary dispute and thereafter on 28-7-2003 Ghulam Jafar and Nasrullah P.Ws. Stated before the police that they had taped extra- judicial confession of Muhammad Naeem petitioner that he alongwith remaining petitioners had killed Asmatullah Khan deceased on account of some monetary transaction.
4. The only incriminating material against the petitioners is their extra-judicial confession made before the P. Ws. About one and half years after the occurrence and then the said P.Ws. Remained quiet for almost ten months and did not report about the said fact to the police and A revealed the said extra-judicial confession before the police -after ten months. Prima facie, there was no necessity on the part of the petitioners to go to the P.Ws. And to make the extra-judicial confession after the delay of one and a half years and then if any such extra-judicial confession had been made before the P.Ws., then it was highly improbable that they would keep quiet for 10 months.
Therefore, the evidence linking the petitioner with the occurrence is tainted one and makes the case of the petitioner a matter of further inquiry. As such, they are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,50, 000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. The observation of this Court in this case is of tentative nature and will not prejudice the proceedings of the trial Court.