Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 8313 of 1970, decided on 13th January 1971.

-----

------‑Mere extra judicial confession, unsupported by any corroborative evidence‑Held, not sufficient for entertaining reasonable belief that accused is guilty of offence Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 201.

Qutba v. The Crown P L D 1954 F C 197 rel.

Saeedur Rehman Farrukh for Petitioner.

Muhammad Asghar for the State.

This is an application by Muhammad Ali son of Bagga under section 497/498, Cr. P. C. He is accused of an offence under section 302/2ul, P. P. C.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had two sons and two daughters, out of whom Mst. Razia aged 20/23 years, developed illicit intimacy with Hameeda Zargar and became pregnant as a result of thereof.' It is alleged that in order to cover up the matter the petitioner set afloat a rumour that he had sent his daughter Mst. Razia to his maternal cousin Maqbool son of Usman, who resided in another village, for treatment. It was however found out recently that Mst. Razia was not in the house of the said Maqbool. An F. I. R. was, therefore, lodged on 3rd August 1970, by Ali Muhammad Lambardar of the village, that the petitioner had murdered his daughter Mst. Razia, about a year ago and had thrown her body in the river near village Jindarka. Investigation was started by the police on the above‑noted F. I. R. Two persons namely, Fazil son of Wali Muhammad and Wali Mohd. son of Lashkar Khan stated before the police that the petitioner had made an extra judicial confession before them admitting that he had murdered his daughter and had thrown her body in the river near village Jindarka. The petitioner is then to have led the police and some other persons including Muhammad Siddiq and Mian Khan to the place where he had allegedly thrown the body ‑of Mst. Razia in the river after murdering her, but nothing was found at that place. Muhammad Aslam S. I., the Investigating Officer, who is present in Court, states that there is no evidence against the accused, besides the above‑noted extra‑judicial confession.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mere' extra‑judicial confession, unsupported by any corroborative evidence, is not sufficient for entertaining a reasonable belief that, the petitioner is a guilty of the offence, which is being alleged against him. He has cited Qutba v. The Crown (PLD1954FC 197) wherein their Lordships have reiterated their observations in Abdul Latif's case (PLD1952FC113) that :

"An extra judicial confession, in order to carry weight as evidence by itself, requires to be supported by exceptional circumstances favouring the belief that it was made and that it is true,"

Their Lordships observed further that this was "a rule of prudence, which through long and consistent application has been crystallised into a rule of practice, having the force of law".

4. Without making any observation about the merits of the case, I am of the view that no reasonable ground has been made out for believing that the petitioner is guilty .of .an offence punishable by death or transportation for life. He is, therefore, released on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Okara.

Petition allowed.