IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, AT KARACHI

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 504 of 2019

  

                                                       

Appellant:                    Abdul Qayoom through Mr. Muhammad Imran Meo advocate

 

The State:                      Through Mr. Khadim Hussain, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

 

Complainant:               Muhammad Ramzan through M/s Muhammad Faheem Zia, Pervaiz Ahmed Bhatti and Sawan advocates

 

Date of hearing:           11.10.2022

 

Date of judgment:        17.10.2022

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J- It is alleged that the appellant committed murder of his wife Mst. Robina by strangulating her throat, for that he was booked and reported upon. After conclusion of trial, he was convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as tazir and to pay compensation of Rs.500,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 06 months with benefit of Section 382(b) Cr.P.C, by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge/ MCTC Karachi West, vide judgment dated 12.07.2019, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Jail Appeal.

2.       It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant in order to satisfy his matrimonial dispute with him; there was no eye witness to the incident, conviction and sentence have been recorded against the appellant on the basis of  his retracted confessional statement, which has been recorded with delay of about 10 days to his arrest. By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the case of Naqibullah and another vs. The State (PLD 1978 S.C 21).

3.       Learned Addl. P.G for the State and learned counsel for the complainant by rebutting the above contentions have sought for dismissal of the instant jail appeal by contending that the confessional statement made by the appellant was true and voluntarily and it has rightly been relied upon.

4.       Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.       It is inter-alia stated by complainant Muhammad Ramzan that Mst. Robina was his sister and was married with the appellant, who was intending to marry his cousin, therefore, was not maintaining good relations with her and then committed her murder by strangulating her throat by giving it cover of suicide by hanging her dead body with a grill. Whatever is stated by the complainant takes support from evidence of P.Ws Shahzad Ali, Muhammad Imran and Masood Akhtar. No doubt they have not actually seen the incident, but they have narrated the facts leading to the incident. As per I.O/SIP Akbar Zaman the rope which allegedly was used in commission of the incident by the appellant was secured by him. His evidence to that extent takes support from evidence of P.W/mashir Muhammad Shafi. On arrest, the appellant has confessed his guilt before I.O/SIP Muhammad Sabir and then before Mr. Sohail Ahmed Mashoori, the Magistrate having jurisdiction, by stating that there arose quarrel between him and his wife on sale of her gold ornaments; on the night of incident, when she was found sleeping, he committed her murder by strangulating her throat and then hanged her dead body with the grill, to give it cover of suicide and then intimated her relatives accordingly. The judicial confession of the appellant obviously is recorded by Mr. Sohail Ahmed Mashori after fulfilling all the requisite formalities, as such, it is appearing to be true and voluntarily. No doubt, it has been recorded on 10th day of arrest of the appellant yet there appears no justification to disbelieve it on point of time, for the reason that no time limit is prescribed by law for recording the same. It was recorded when the appellant was found ready to make it. The appellant during course of his examination under Section 342 Cr.P.C when was asked about his confessional statement, stated that he was pressurized by the Magistrate to give such statement. The Magistrate being independent person, was having no reason to have pressurized the appellant to make confessional statement, therefore, it could not be disbelieved on having been retracted by the appellant. In these circumstances, it could be concluded safely that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt mainly on the basis of own judicial confession.

6.       In the case of Ghulam Qadir and others vs. The State               (2007 SCMR 782), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“7. The confessional statements of the appellants were, recorded by the Magistrate on 22-8-1998, seven days after their arrest. Undoubtedly some delay was caused in recording these statements. Delay in recording judicial confession becomes relevant to determine its voluntariness. However delay, without more, does not render the confession in-voluntary.(See Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State 1992 SCMR 1983).”

 

 

7.       The case law which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is on distinguishable facts and circumstances. In that case, the accused were not enquired by the Magistrate if they were tortured by the police and why they are making confessional statement. In the instant case all the requisite formalities have been observed by the Magistrate before recording confessional statement of the appellant.

8.       In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it is concluded that no case for interference with the impugned judgment is made out, by this Court, by way of instant jail appeal, it is dismissed accordingly.

      JUDGE