31/05/2026
2025 S C M R 1380
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim, JJ BASHIR-UD-DIN and others ---Appellants Versus The STATE ---Respondent Criminal Appeals Nos. 26, 27 and 28 of 2021, decided on 8th May, 2025. (On appeal against the judgment dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in Crl. A. No. 13 of 2011, Crl. A. No. 19 of 2021 and M.R. No. 10 of 2011). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 396 & 460---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164--Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night---Reappraisal of evidence--Confession, recording of---Appellants were charged that they entered into the house of complainant, tied his and his wife's hands and one of them murdered his son---In the present case, the judicial confession of one of the appellants was available on record in the form of Section 164 Cr.P.C statement, in which the said appellant narrated the occurrence and gave an inculpatory confessional statement which involved the role of all co-accused persons, who were the present appellants in the instant case---Judicial confession is attributed with a high degree of confidence ipso facto, as it is recorded by a judicial officer in a Court in consonance with Sections 164 and 364 of the Cr.P.C. and it is commonly relied upon for maintaining conviction--Judicial confessional statement of an accused is recognized by law as circumstantial evidence against the other co-accused---In the present case, the inculpatory confession made by the appellant not only detailed his own involvement but also implicated the other appellants in the incident---Even though the confession was subsequently retracted, a conviction could still be sustained if there existed other corroborative and incriminating evidence against the appellants--Once a confessional statement was found to be true and voluntary, it could form the basis for conviction---Inculpatory judicial confession of appellant constituted a significant cornerstone of the prosecution's case---Said confession was duly corroborated by the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the identification parade, medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon and the forensic report issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, collectively forming a consistent and credible chain of evidence supporting the prosecution's narrative--Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence. Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition; John H. Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law 821, at 308 (James H. Chadbourn ed., 4th rev. ed. 1970); Imran v. the State 2015 SCMR 155; Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din PLD 2022 SC 353; Mazhar Hussain v. The State 1990 MLD 195; Haji Jatoi v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1492; Farooq Mengal v. The State 2007 SCMR 404; Manjeet Singh v. The State PLD 2006 SC 30; Tariq Hussain v. The State 2003 SCMR 938; Maj (R) Tariq Mehmood v. The State 2002 SCMR 1493; Mst. Rubina Bibi v. The State 2001 SCMR 1914; Emperor v. Daii Norsu and Govinda Nath ILR (1883) 6 Bom 223; Khurrum Malik and others v. The State and others PLD 2006 SC 354; Mohd. Sabir v. Rex AIR 1952 All 796; Rema Naik v. State AIR 1965 Ori 31; Balbir Singh v. The State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216 and Muhammad Amin v. The State PLD 2006 SC 219 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 396 & 460---Qatl-i-amd, dacoity with murder, person jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night---Reappraisal of evidence---Motive not proved---Mitigating circumstance---Quantum of sentence---Accused were charged that they entered into the home of complainant, tied his and his wife's hands and one of them murdered his son---Record showed that the prosecution's case revealed two conflicting narratives regarding the motive---One asserted that the murder occurred during a robbery/dacoity, while the other proposed the possibility of targeted killing---Consequently, the true motive remained shrouded in mystery---Both versions had surfaced in the evidence, yet neither diminished the culpability of the appellants, nor any of the versions was supported by cogent evidence---Where the motive for the offence is shrouded in mystery then the extreme penalty of death is not warranted---Additionally, given that four individuals were implicated in the crime, the investigation and identification parade did not attribute a specific role to each appellant with respect to inflicting that injury---Said factual matrix, while not exonerating the appellants, constituted a relevant mitigating circumstance in the assessment of their respective culpabilities and the quantum of sentence---Thus, death sentence of the appellants was modified to the sentence of life imprisonment--- Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence. Muhammad Yaqoob v. State 1999 SCMR 1138; Ali Asghar alias Aksar v. The State 2023 SCMR 596; Nadeem Ramzan v. The State 2018 SCMR 149; Amjad Shah v. State PLD 2017 SC 152; Zafar Iqbal v. State 2014 SCMR 1227 and Shameem Khan v. The State 2024 SCMR 1802 rel....
