SAQIB vs STATE S — 2026 YLR 397 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.

SAQIB VS STATE S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessional statement of accused, recording of---Infirmities---Accused was charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by firing---Appellant made confession before the Judicial Magistrate---Order dated 08.4.2019 of the Judicial Magistrate showed that the appellant was handed over to the Naib Court for sending him to the judicial lock-up---In that respect, statement of Investigating Officer was worth perusal---Record showed that he produced the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate for recording his confessional statement---As per statement of Investigating Officer, it appeared that the appellant was handed over to Investigating Officer after recording his confessional statement---It was further reflected from the statement that the appellant was handed over to Investigating Officer after 12 minutes of his production before the Judicial Magistrate---Investigating Officer stated that three other Police Officials accompanying him, shifted the appellant to judicial lock-up after recording confessional statement---Said replies materially contradicted the statement of the Judicial Magistrate, his order dated 08.4.2019 pertaining to the judicial remand and the certificate he issued in respect of the confessional statement---Certificate showed that the appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate at 01:30p.m.; he gave 30 minutes time to the appellant for thinking over his decision to make confessional statement, he started recording confessional statement at 02:00p.m. and finished it at 02:15 p.m.---When asked, Judicial Magistrate could not tell the exact time he consumed while explaining the questionnaire to the appellant---Judicial Magistrate rather furnished a general reply stating that sufficient time was consumed---Judicial Magistrate was not cross-examined on that aspect of the confessional statement and from his order dated 08.4.2019, it was clear that he had handed over the appellant to the Naib Court for his onward transmission to the judicial lock-up---Appellant somehow or the other was again given into the hands of the Investigating Officer---Judicial Magistrate could not be blamed for that---However, as per statement of Investigating Officer, it was quite clear that the Investigating Officer managed to get back the appellant into his control and custody---Thus, the police high-handedness was apparent from the evidence, which had a material bearing on the voluntariness of the appellant's confession---When the very voluntariness of a confessional statement becomes a begging question and when ocular account is also disbelieved then in the absence of any other confidence inspiring evidence, it would not be safe to make such a confessional statement a base for conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

SAQIB vs STATE S — 2026 YLR 397 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR