MUHAMMAD WASIM vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 81 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD WASIM VS State Ss. 302, 311, 109, 404 & 34--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345(2)---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, abetment, dishonest misappropriation of property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Compounding of offence---Compromise between the parties---Conviction and sentence, effect upon---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister/daughter of complainant on the pretext of honour and he was facilitated by other son of complainant---Trial Court dismissed the application filed under S. 345(2), Cr.P.C---Scope---Record indicated that application under S. 345, Cr.P.C., for compromise between the legal heirs of deceased with accused was submitted before the Trial Court---However, that was not a fact under dispute that the only legal heirs of deceased at the relevant time was her parents because her two brothers were the accused of the case---On the same day, statements of both the legal heirs were recorded where they categorically maintained that they had forgiven accused and they were having no objection for the acquittal of said assailants---Even mother of deceased present in Court with her Advocate stood for the said compromise---Father of deceased was not present having passed away---Trial Court after recording the statements, on the same date dismissed the application---Conviction of accused under S. 311, P.P.C., itself indicated that Trial Court had accepted the compromise but finding the case as of honour killing declared it within the ambit of S. 311, P.P.C.---Conviction of an offender on the principle of fasad-fil-arz or on the pretext of honour killing must based on clear and qualitative evidence---As for the purpose of convicting the accused under S. 311, P.P.C., the Trial Court had mainly relied upon his confession recorded by Judicial Magistrate---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted from the case on the basis of compromise. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 81 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD WASIM VS State Ss. 302, 311, 109, 404 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisasin qatl-i-amd, abetment, dishonest misappropriation of property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Scope---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister/daughter of complainant on the pretext of honour and he was facilitated by other son of complainant---Accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 18.07.2016 for recording his confessional statement---No doubt that in the last line accused gave a reason of murder of his sister due to pictures and videos but still it did not mean that murder was on the pretext of honour killing as the same was not specifically pleaded by accused in his alleged confession---Conviction, particularly in the case of capital charge could not be recorded by presuming the facts---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted from the case on the basis of compromise. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 81 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD WASIM VS State Ss. 302, 311, 109, 404 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-i-amd, abetment, dishonest misappropriation of property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---Infirmities---Accused was charged for committing murder of his sister/daughter of complainant on the pretext of honour and he was facilitated by other son of complainant---Accused was produced before Judicial Magistrate at about 02:30 p.m. whereas the alleged confession showed that it was recorded at 03:00 p.m.---In such a serious and high profile case only 30 minutes time for reconciliation for accused was unreasonable to dispel or dislodge any impression of fear and undue influence on him---Entire court staff was retained inside the court---Judicial Magistrate was supposed to ask only those members of his staff who were necessary keeping in view the security inside the court room---Accused was produced in custody by police---Statement was completely silent that handcuffs of accused were removed before he made the statement and thereafter he was again handcuffed---Except the confession recorded in Urdu, all other proceedings were in English but there was no oath of the Stenographer available on record to show that he had typed every fact in accordance with the dictation made to him by the Judicial Magistrate---Confession on the face of it appeared to be an exercise because except the statement of accused every fact was typed in English---Even the questions put to accused and the answers thereof were typed in English---Judicial Magistrate although in cross-examination responded that he also asked the questions in Urdu but he admitted that he did not mention that fact anywhere---Duty of Judicial Magistrate was to give a note that accused was familiar with the English language and he gave the answers also in the same language---If it was not so, it was also his duty to give a specific note that all the questions and answers were translated to the accused in Urdu language---Judicial Magistrate did not give any certificate anywhere that what were those compelling reasons that he was unable to record the entire proceedings in his own hand writing---Statement in Urdu by the hand of Judicial Magistrate made it clear that there was nothing wrong with him on that day so it was not understandable that why that exercise was completed in English and Urdu---No doubt that after the alleged confession accused was sent to Jail but surprisingly his custody was handed over to the same Investigating Officer who had produced him in court with the application for recording of confession---Value of confession, in circumstances, could not be considered more than a piece of paper---Once the evidence of confession was discarded, there was no other material at all with the prosecution to establish that it was a case of honour killing---Record showed that it was an unseen occurrence and all the private witnesses had resiled from their statements---Said witnesses were declared as hostile by the prosecution but despite considerable cross-examination on them nothing favourable to the State could be brought on record---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted from the case on the basis of compromise.

MUHAMMAD WASIM vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJN 81 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported