Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 295-B,297,429,109,34

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 265-C,342,340(2),382-B

  Facts The appellant, Usman, challenged the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Peshawar dated 14.03.2025. He was convicted in FIR No. 493 dated 08.05.2021 registered at Police Station Shahpur, Peshawar under Sections 295-B, 297, 429, 109 & 34 PPC. The prosecution alleged that during the month of Ramadan, the complainant and other worshippers noticed flames in a graveyard after Tarawih prayers. Upon reaching the graveyard, they allegedly found Usman and his co-accused burning pages of the Holy Quran and slaughtering a dog as part of an occult/black magic ritual. The accused were apprehended at the spot, police arrived immediately, recovered burnt Quranic pages, ashes, a bloodstained knife, and the injured dog, and registered the FIR. Evidence The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, including eyewitnesses, police officials, and forensic experts. The eyewitnesses consistently testified regarding: The apprehension of the accused at the spot. Recovery of burnt Quranic pages, ashes, knife, and injured dog. Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) confirmed: Animal blood on the recovered knife. Animal blood on the recovered Quranic pages. Both accused made judicial confessional statements before a Judicial Magistrate after observing all legal safeguards. The confessions indicated that both accused acted together and implicated another alleged mastermind who remained absconding. Appellant's Arguments The appellant argued that: He was not the principal offender. The co-accused was the main person responsible. His confession did not show that he personally committed every alleged act. Therefore, he should not have been convicted equally. High Court's Findings The High Court held that: The prosecution witnesses remained consistent and trustworthy despite lengthy cross-examination. No motive for false implication was established. The prompt FIR, recoveries, forensic reports, and judicial confessions corroborated each other. The judicial confession was voluntary and legally admissible. Even if the appellant did not perform every physical act himself, he knowingly accompanied and actively associated with the commission of the offence. Under the…