SHER AHMED vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1717 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.

SHER AHMED VS State Ss. 302(b), 365-a & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting for extorting property, valuable security, etc., common intention---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessional statements of accused---Doubtful---accused-appellant were charged for committing murder of the minor son of complainant after kidnapping him for extorting money---In the present case, the appellants had recorded their respective judicial confessions under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.---Statement of one of the appellants was exculpatory because he had alleged that despite restraining the other appellant, the latter had killed the child---Likewise, the confessional statement recorded by the other appellant was partly exculpatory in nature since he had attributed an effective role to first accused in taking the life of the minor victim---Events narrated by both the appellants in their respective confessional statements were distinct and not corroborated---Proceedings till the registration of the case under Section 154, Cr.P.C., and the arrest of an appellant and then the recovery of the dead body, according to the prosecution's case, at his instance were not only shrouded in mystery but they were in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C.---Moreover, it was a mystery as to when and why the appellants were treated as suspects and the arrest of the appellant also became questionable---Said fact definitely must have had serious consequences in the context of the exercise of free will and rational thinking for the purpose of making a confession---Such circumstances raised serious doubts regarding the confessional statements recorded under Section 164,Cr.P.C. being voluntary and given out of free will---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed in its obligation to prove the case against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt---appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

SHER AHMED vs State Ss — 2025 SCMR 1717 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 SCMR