Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd and common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confession---Pre-requisite--- Retracted confession--- Conviction on retracted confession---Scope---Accused persons were convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life on the basis of confessional statement from which they retracted thereafter---Validity---Prosecution witnesses had not made any allegation against the present accused with regard to commission of offence---Only piece of evidence to connect the accused with the offence was alleged confessional statements recorded by them---If a conviction was to be based solely on confessional statement then court had to satisfy itself that same was voluntary, made promptly and had fulfilled the necessary pre-requisite---Accused should be informed and explained before recording confessional statement that whether or not he made the confession his custody would not be handed over to the police which had brought him there---Alleged confessional statements had been retracted by the accused---Corroboration in material particulars in cases of retracted confession was essential---Conviction could not be based solely on a retracted confession---No evidence had come against the accused in the present case---Contradictions between ocular and medical evidence were on record with regard to alleged time of death and time mentioned in the postmortem report---No corroboration of material particulars existed with the alleged retracted confessional statements---Prosecution was bound to establish its case beyond any doubt---Not only the confession was involuntary but same was also not corroborated by any single piece of evidence to connect the accused with the offence---Prosecution had failed to establish its case against the accused---Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge---Accused should be released forthwith if not required in any other case---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Syed Azeem Shah v. The State PLD 1987 Quetta 96; Gangoram v. State 2003 PCr.LJ 1608; Danial Boyd (Muslim name Saifullah)…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492