PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

NADEEM QAYYUM vs State Ss — 2022 YLR 1290 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Citation
2022 YLR 1290 ISLAMABAD
Court
Islamabad High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
YLR
Parties
NADEEM QAYYUM vs State Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 164---Q; S. 164; Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

NADEEM QAYYUM VS State Ss. 302(b), 365, 201 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, causing disappearance of evidence, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Confession before a Magistrate--- Scope--- Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the son of the complainant---Accused in his statement gave details as to how he along with co-accused persons had murdered the deceased---Accused confessed to tying the legs of deceased and striking him on his head with an iron chain---Said accused also implicated two co-accused by stating that co-accused had strangled the deceased with the rope whereas other co-accused had tied the hands of the deceased---Accused confessed that he along with co-accused persons had placed the body of the deceased in a gunny bag, placed bricks in the gunny bag so that it drowned and to have thrown it in the well---Before throwing the body in the well, the three accused had distributed the belonging of the deceased, including his two mobile telephone sets, between themselves---Said accused confessed that one of the mobile phones of the deceased and three mobile phones SIMs were kept by him---Co-accused in his statement confessed to have strangled the deceased with a rope around his neck---Said co-accused stated that in the face of pleas for mercy by the deceased, a collective decision was made by the three accused to kill him so that he did not reveal the fact as to the snatching of the mobile telephone sets from him---Said co-accused deposed that the hands of deceased were tied by other co-accused whereas his legs were tied by accused---After that, the deceased was taken to the brick kiln where accused struck him with an iron chain and his body along with bricks was placed in a gunny bag and thrown into the well---One of the mobile phones of deceased was kept by accused and the other one by other co-accused---Other co-accused in his statement before the Executive Magistrate deposed that the deceased had been called by accused to the brick kiln for the sale of his mobile phone---Said co-accused confessed to killing the deceased jointly with the other two accused---Said co-accused gave details as to how he tied the hands of deceased behind his back and how he held him while co-accused put a rope around his neck and accused tied his legs---Said co-accused stated that at the brick kiln accused struck the deceased on his head with an iron chain and thereafter the accused persons placed his body in a gunny bag and threw it in the well---Executive Magistrate deposed that he had recorded the confessional statements of accused persons under S. 164, Cr.P.C after ascertaining that the accused persons were ready to make their statements voluntarily---No contradictions in the confessional statements of the three accused---Accused persons gave graphic details of how the accused in concert murdered the deceased and concealed his body by putting it in a gunny bag and throwing it into the well---Said statements also elaborated the exact roles played by each of the accused in putting the deceased to death---Post-mortem was also consistent with the explicit description given by the accused persons in their confessional statements as to the manner in which the deceased was murdered---Circumstances established that the present case did not present special features warranting interference in the convictions of the accused persons, however, judicial confession made by the accused persons could not be relied upon, thus reduced the sentence of accused from imprisonment for life to the term already undergone/served by them---Appeal was partly allowed.

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English