Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 6338 2024 SLD 6338 = 2024 YLR 947
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Jail Appeal No. 61 of 2022, decided on 24th May, 2023.
Before Mohammad Karim Khan Agha and Kausar Sultana Hussain, JJ
Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar along with Abdul Qadir Soomro for Appellant. Ali Haider Saleem, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh and Rana Khalid Hussain, Special Prosecutor Rangers for the State.

Syed AFSAR alias RIZVI---Appellant

VERSUS

The STATE---Respondent

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302(b),34

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: XXVII,7

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 164

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his friend by firing---No eye-witness to the murder was there---No last seen evidence was there---No recovery of any weapon was made from the accused--Accused allegedly took the police to the place where the murder took place but admittedly that place was already known to the police so that piece of evidence was irrelevant---Significantly, the one place which the police did not know about i.e. from where the deceased was abducted, the accused did not take the police there--Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 164--- Judicial confession---Retraction---Scope---Retracted confession before a Magistrate could be the basis of conviction in a capital case.Muhammad Amin v. The State PLD 2006 SC 219; Muhammad Ismail and others v. The State 2017 SCMR 898 and Fazal Rehman and others v. The State and others PLD 2004 SC 250 rel.(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt--Confession, retraction of---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant and his friend by firing---Based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case where admittedly the accused had been held in communicado in rangers custody where he originally admitted to numerous crimes for 90 days and the confession itself, which the accused claimed was not voluntary--Thus, it was not safe to rely on the retracted judicial confession and same was to be excluded from consideration---Moreover, it would be impossible for the accused to record such a long and detailed confession whereby he confessed to many murders over a number of years with dates and locations and names of persons concerned in the murder as well as the persons who were murdered---To do so would require a photo graphic memory which the accused did not…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register