IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
Criminal Appeal No.21-P of 2010 
(Against the judgment dated 18.06.2008 
passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar 
in 
Criminal 
Appeal 
No.425/2005 
with 
Murder 
Reference 
No.40/2005). 
 
Wazir 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
The State & another 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Mr. Astaghfirullah, ASC 
 
 
 
For the State 
: Mr. Mujahid Ali Khan, 
Additional Advocate General, 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 29.04.2019 
 
Judgment 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Wazir Son of 
Shamshair, appellant herein, was tried along side eleven others by 
the learned Special Judge, Anti Terrorism Court at Saidu Sharif for 
being a privy to abduction of Muhammad Naeem deceased in order 
to exact ransom from his family; he was arrested much late in the 
day, 
finally 
indicted 
along 
side 
Noor 
Zaman 
co-accused; 
consequent upon their convictions they were sentenced to death; 
remainder of the accused were acquitted from the charge. The High 
Court maintained conviction of the appellant, however altered 
penalty of death into imprisonment for life; while dealing with the 
case of Fazal Rehman, co-convict he was found guilty by the 
learned High Court for conspiracy within the contemplation of 
Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal code, 1860 and thus sentenced 
to five years R.I. Leave has been granted to re-apprise the evidence 
to ensure safe administration of criminal justice.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 
appellant has been roped in the case on the basis of a misplaced 
Criminal Appeal No.21-P of 2010 
2
and misconceived suspicion; that confessional statement is a 
flawed piece of evidence hardly sufficient to sustain the charge; it 
has been disbelieved qua majority of the accused and thus cannot 
be pressed into service qua the appellant; it is contracted by 
medical evidence pointed out by the learned counsel. Contrarily 
the learned Law Officer has defended the impugned judgment; he 
argued that the Courts below rightly convicted the appellant for the 
crime as prosecution successfully drove home charge against him 
beyond reasonable doubt. He has referred to appellant’s long 
absconsion as a circumstance reflecting upon his guilt. 
3. 
 
Appellant’s confessional statement relied upon by the 
Courts below is prosecution’s mainstay. Occurrence took place way 
back in February 2002, whereas the appellant statedly made his 
breast clean on 27.6.2002. We have noticed the confessional 
statement spreading over four hand written pages as unseemingly 
elaborate and exhaustive; it is more an encyclopedia to cater needs 
for the prosecution than a declaration of guilt by a remorseful or 
repentant offender. Argument that such a detailed narrative can 
neither be voluntary nor spontaneous is not entirely beside the 
mark. We have also not felt comfortable with the printed form with 
empty spaces to fill the relevant details to qualify requirements of 
Section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Argument that 
warnings and cautions were not live addressed face to face to the 
prisoner cannot be dismissed out of hand. Once prosecution opts 
to rely upon a confessional statement of an accused to his 
detriment it must come forward with the disclosure above all 
suspicions and taints; it is not a case in hand. Findings recorded 
by the medical officer with regard to cause of death are not in line 
with the details purportedly furnished by the appellant. According 
to the confessional statement the deceased was tortured and he 
became unconscious when the accused put a quilt on him and 
found dead when removed, whereas according to Dr. Nisar Ahmed, 
PW-7 the death “occurred due to extra ordinary violence, choking 
and fracture of cervical spine (due to trauma and fracture choking) 
(asphaxial death)”.  Confessional statement cannot be favourably 
received without being imprudent for yet another reason; it has 
been disbelieved qua Ibrahim, Muhammad Zaib, Hassan Shah, 
Criminal Appeal No.21-P of 2010 
3
Javed, Shah Zaman, Wali Khan, Sajid Khan and Ghani Khan, co-
accused. It is by now well settled that a confessional statement has 
to be received wholistically without quantification; once it is found 
unreliable qua majority of the accused notwithstanding different 
roles it cannot furnish basis for appellant’s conviction as well. We 
have also not been able to draw any distinction in the appellant’s 
position vis-à-vis Fazal Rehman who had been let off by the learned 
High Court with five years imprisonment. On the whole, 
prosecution case against the appellant is not free from doubt and 
thus it would be un-safe to maintain the conviction. Criminal 
appeal is allowed.  
 
    
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
29th of April, 2019 
Ghulam Raza/* 
JUDGE