Hukman Shah vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 2026 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Hukman Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 392,386, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased during robbery---Complainant, who had furnished evidence of last seen of the deceased in company of appellant "HS", while appearing before the Trial Court in the witness box, had deposed that during those days he was running a business of Rent A-Car business and deceased was his driver; that on 02.11.2013 at about 09.00 AM one of the accused, "HS", came and hired his taxi motorcar against rent of Rs.8000/- from "I" to "D" on a pretext that he had arrived from Dubai and due to demise of his father he had to rush to "D"; that Complainant directed his driver/deceased to take him in a taxi motorcar, whereafter his driver along with taxi disappeared---Complainant identified appellant "HS" at the spot by stating that he was the person who hired taxi motorcar of the deceased from "I" Airport to "D" and he had duly mentioned that fact in the FIR---In such circumstances, holding of identification parade was not the legal requirement of the case---Record showed that the deceased went missing on 02.11.2013 while his dead body was recovered on 11.12.2013 i.e. after one month and nine days---Testimony of Medical Officer, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, supported the testimony of complainant and confessional statements of the appellants as on examination he found the dead body of the deceased decomposed and one entry wound on his right posterior occipital region---In the instant case, the deceased was last seen in the company of appellant "HS", who had not furnished any explanation so as to point towards his innocence, rather the explanation furnished by him in his confessional statement the deceased was taken to poultry farm of "AU" appellant where he was done to death and his taxi motorcar was snatched---Such circumstantial pieces of evidence made an unbroken chain and its one end touched the dead body of the deceased and the other the neck of the appellants---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however the death sentence of appellant "HS" was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence to the extent of appellant "HS". Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 2026 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hukman Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 392,386, 412 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of appellants, recording of---Voluntariness---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased during robbery---Judicial Magistrate, who had recorded confessional statements of the appellants, had deposed that on 23.12.2013 the appellants were produced before him for recording their confessional statements---Judicial Magistrate after observing all legal and codel formalities and putting all relevant and necessary questions to the appellants, one by one, recorded confessional statements of appellants under his own hand writing---Judicial Magistrate exhibited confessional statements of the appellants---Judicial Magistrate had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but nothing of the sort that the confessional statements of the appellants were involuntary and result of torture, coercion or inducement could be extracted from him---Thus, confessional statements of the appellants were voluntary and true as well as free from any force and inducement and were corroborated by circumstantial and medical evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however the death sentence of appellant "HS" was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence to the extent of appellant "HS". Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 2026 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hukman Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 392,386, 412 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, quantum of---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased during robbery---Record showed that the prosecution had proved the guilt of appellants under Ss.302(b), 386, 392,P.P.C---So far as conviction of the appellants under S. 412 was concerned, it pertained to dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity, therefore, this Section as per available evidence had relevancy with the role of absconding co-accused, to whom the taxi of the deceased was allegedly sold by the appellant---Trial Court had rightly held appellants guilty of offences under Ss. 302, 386 and 392, P.P.C, however, had erred in law which recording their conviction and sentence under S.412,P.P.C.---Besides, sentence of death awarded by the Trial Court to appellant "HS" also required serious consideration---From the entire prosecution's evidence as well as confessional statements of the appellants it was proved that it was appellant "AU" who fired at the deceased, as a result, he got hit and died on the spot---No doubt, appellant "HS" had not fired at the deceased; however, the prosecution had proved his role of abetment in the commission of offence as he was the person who brought the deceased from "I" Airport to "D" on a pretext, where he was done to death by "AU" appellant, however, his dead body and taxi motorcar were disposed of by both the appellants---Sentence of appellant "HS" under S.302(b), P.P.C,was altered from death to rigorous imprisonment for life to meet the ends of justice, whereas the death sentence of appellant "AU" was maintained, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence to the extent of appellant "HS". Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 2026 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hukman Shah VS State Ss. 302(b), 392,386, 412 & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statements of appellants---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the deceased during robbery---Perusal of confessional statements of the appellants would reveal that both were in line with each other on the points as to how car of driver/deceased was booked by appellant "HS" on the direction of other appellant "AU" from "I" Airport and taken to "D" where he was done to death inside poultry farm of appellant "AU" and his dead body was thrown by both the appellants in a dry well and his taxi motorcar was sold to absconding co-accused---From confessional statements of the appellants it was also manifested that appellant "HS" had played the role of taking the deceased from "I" Airport on special trip to "D" as to snatch motorcar from him and on resistance of the deceased, his murder was committed by appellant "AU"---No doubt, appellant "HS" had not made any firing at the deceased, however, in throwing dead body of the deceased in a well and selling his taxi motorcar followed by distribution of the sale consideration, both the appellants had played equal role---Confessional statements of the appellants was corroborated by the testimony of Investigating Officer, who deposed that he along with other Police Officials, Illaqa Judicial Magistrate, doctor and inhabitants of the locality went to the place and on the disclosure/pointation of the appellants recovered two human dead bodies from a well located inside poultry farm owned by appellant "AU" ; that out of the two deceased, one was identified by complainant and relatives to be that of deceased of the present case---Said material witnesses of the recovery of the dead body of the deceased on the discovery of the appellants had been cross-examined at length by the defence but nothing of the sort that the police was already in the knowledge of the place of the recovery of the dead body could be extracted from them---Confession of an accused could be used against accused as well as against co-accused being jointly tried for the same offence---In the instant case, both the appellants had been tried jointly and they had made confession which had been proved by the prosecution through confidence inspiring evidence corroborated by other reliable and cogent evidence---Thus, confessional statements of the appellants could be used against each one of them as a circumstantial piece of evidence---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case, however the death sentence of appellant "HS" was altered to imprisonment for life---Appeal against conviction was dismissed with modification in sentence to the extent of appellant "HS". Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 2026 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hukman Shah VS State S. 164---Confessional statement---Retraction---Conviction---Scope---Conviction canbe recorded on the basis of retracted judicial confession, if the same is proved voluntary, true and is corroborated by other strong circumstances of the case---Mere denial of accused from confessional statement, in statement under Section 342,Cr.P.C., that the same is involuntary or that he has not made any such statement will not make his confessional statement inadmissible. Citation Name: 2025 PCrLJ 2026 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Hukman Shah VS State Circumstantial evidence---Conviction---Conviction can be recorded even in a case carrying death sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence if it excludes all hypothesis of innocence of accused---Prosecution is duty bound to prove every circumstance independently so connected with other circumstances which constituted an unbroken chain that led to no other inference but to the guilt of accused.

Hukman Shah vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 2026 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ