OBAIDULLAH vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1558 SUPREME-COURT

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

OBAIDULLAH VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Re-appraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confession, retraction of---Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant---Accused was convicted by trial Court for qatl-i-amd and was sentenced to imprisonment for life---High Court maintained conviction and sentence awarded to accused---Validity---As per retracted judicial confession of petitioner, he committed the murder of deceased, due to the motive that about one year prior to the occurrence he received a phone call from co-accused (since Proclaimed Offender) who wanted to marry with him and informed the said petitioner that she was already engaged with deceased, therefore, the said petitioner should first commit the murder of deceased and then they could marry with each other, whereupon, the petitioner along with other petitioner, committed the murder of deceased, while taking him out of the village on the pretext of tracing out some article---In his judicial confession, petitioner further stated that after committing the murder of deceased, they (accused) dug a grave and put the dead body of deceased in the said grave and filled the grave of the deceased with earth---Judicial confession of other petitioner was also on the same lines---Insofar as the motive disclosed in the retracted judicial confessions of the petitioners was concerned, notable that no motive whatsoever was mentioned in the FIR, which was lodged after 11 days of the occurrence---Likewise, complainant, who was paternal uncle of deceased, and witness who was real brother of the deceased, had not uttered a single word in their statements before the Court that deceased was ever engaged with co-accused (since PO) or their marriage was going to be solemnized in the near future---Rather complainant and witness conceded during their cross-examinations that they had no previous enmity with the accused/petitioners---No other witness was produced to prove the alleged motive that deceased was ever engaged with the co-accused (since PO) or his marriage with the said co-accused was planned in the near future---No motive was put to the petitioners in their statements recorded under Section 342,Cr.P.C---No telephone numbers, SIM numbers, Call Data Record or transcript of the conversation of the accused with each other had been brought on the record---Keeping in view the said facts, there was no independent corroboration of retracted judicial confession of the petitioners with the motive part of the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioners beyond the shadow of doubt---Appeals were allowed accordingly.

OBAIDULLAH vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1558 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR