MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs STATE — 2026 PCrLJ 295 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM VS STATE. Ss. 302(b), 394, 365 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40---Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt while committing or attempting to commit robbery, kidnapping or abducting a person with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of dead body of deceased at the instance of accused doubtful---Scope. The accused were charged for committing murder of the son of the complainant after his kidnapping. The record showed that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from an abandoned well on 26.06.2019. At that time, the appellants were neither arrested in the instant case nor was any statement or confession recorded by the Investigating Officer. The appellants were detained only in the instant case on 26.06.2019. Subsequently, about one month later, on 30.07.2019, the Investigating Officer recorded the alleged extra-judicial confession, nearly 34 days after the initial recovery of the dead body. Regarding the recovery of the dead body on the indication of the appellants, the alleged recovery could not be considered to have been made at the pointing out of the accused persons because the dead body had already been recovered on 26.06.2019, much before their formal arrest in the present case. Furthermore, the alleged extra-judicial confession was recorded on 30.07.2019. A mere extra-judicial confession, which was not followed by any discovery of a fact, was not admissible in evidence. A dead body which had already been discovered did not fall within the ambit of Art.40 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Further perusal of record showed that the accused had once been arrested in this case by Inspector on 15.09.2018. After thorough investigation, the appellant was sent to judicial custody on 28.09.2018 without recovery of the dead body or recording of any confession. Therefore, the subsequent recovery allegedly based upon the indication of the accused created serious doubt regarding the prosecution version. The prosecution failed to prove the circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs STATE — 2026 PCrLJ 295 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ