“The extra judicial confession has never been considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it is strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source.”
The accused was charged with rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl. Among other convictions, he was convicted of murder under PPC 302(b) and sentenced to death. On appeal, the Federal Shariat Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to life imprisonment.
The girl had gone missing after going to a nearby shop to buy cookies, and her body was found the next day. The Local General Councillor claimed that the accused had come to his home and confessed to the crime, and had sought the Councillor’s help in reaching a compromise with the girl’s father. The Councillor and the accused both stated that they were not on good terms with each other, and the Councillor explained that during the previous election, the accused and his family had supported the rival candidate. In considering the alleged confession, the Supreme Court stated that “the legal worth of the extra judicial confession . . . is almost equal to naught, keeping in view the natural course of events, human behaviour, conduct and probabilities, in ordinary course.” The Court stated that it was not believable that the accused would have confessed his crime to the Councillor and sought his assistance, when both parties agreed they were not on good terms. The Court went on to state that “the extra judicial confession has never been considered sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge unless it is strongly corroborated by tangible evidence coming from unimpeachable source.” The confession was found “entirely insufficient” to carry the charge and, finding flaws with all other evidence as well, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused of all charges.
