IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa 
Mr. Justice Manzoor Ahmad Malik 
Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah 
 
 
 
Jail Petition No. 298 of 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 20.03.2018 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore in Criminal Appeal No. 167868/J of 2018 and 
Capital Sentence Reference No. 1/T of 2018) 
 
 
Imran Ali  
 
 
… Petitioner 
versus 
The State  
 
 
  
 
 … Respondent 
 
 
For the petitioner: 
Ms. Sarwat Nawaz, ASC 
 
For the complainant: 
In person.  
 
 
For the State: 
Mr. Mazhar Sher Awan, Additional 
Prosecutor General, Punjab 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
12.06.2018 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.: For 
allegedly 
kidnapping, 
sodomizing, raping and murdering a minor girl namely Zainab 
Amin, aged about 7/8 years, the petitioner was booked in case FIR 
No. 8 registered at Police Station A-Division, Kasur on 04.01.2018 
and after a regular trial he was convicted by the trial court for 
offences under sections 364-A, 376, 377, 302(b) and 201, PPC and 
section 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and for some of the 
above mentioned offences he was sentenced to death apart from 
some other sentences passed against him. The petitioner 
challenged his convictions and sentences through an appeal which 
was dismissed by the High Court and all his convictions and 
Jail Petition No. 298 of 2018 
 
2
sentences recorded by the trial court were upheld and confirmed. 
Hence, the present petition before this Court.  
 
2. 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 
learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the 
State and have gone through the record of the case with their 
assistance.  
 
3. 
It has straightaway been noticed by us that when the charge 
was framed by the trial court against the petitioner he had pleaded 
guilty as charged and on that occasion he had got recorded a 
detailed confessional statement wherein he had admitted almost 
every aspect of this case alleged against him. Despite such 
pleading guilty to the charge and making of a confessional 
statement by the petitioner the trial court had decided to proceed 
with recording of evidence and during the trial statements of as 
many as 32 prosecution witnesses were recorded and many other 
pieces of evidence were brought on the record. In his statement 
recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioner had once again 
admitted almost all the vital pieces of evidence produced by the 
prosecution against him as correct and had once again admitted 
his guilt unreservedly. We have observed that even in his 
arguments addressed before the trial court the learned counsel for 
the petitioner had only prayed for some lenience to be shown to the 
petitioner in the matter of his sentence and no argument had been 
advanced before the trial court challenging the merits of the 
prosecution’s case against the petitioner. We have further observed 
that in his memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioner before the 
High Court once again only lenience in the matter of sentence had 
been prayed for by the petitioner without questioning his 
convictions recorded by the trial court. It was for the first time 
during the arguments before the High Court that the learned 
counsel for the petitioner had maintained that admission of guilt 
by the petitioner before the trial court was a result of coercion but 
during such arguments he had not provided any detail regarding 
coercion applied against the petitioner so as to extract a 
confession. In paragraph No. 4 of the memorandum of the present 
Jail Petition No. 298 of 2018 
 
3
petition filed before this Court it has been maintained by the 
petitioner that the confession made by him was a result of duress 
and inducement but in paragraph No. 10 of this very petition the 
petitioner has, once again, admitted his involvement in the alleged 
offences in clear and categorical terms. Apart from pleading guilty 
to the charge and making a confession by the petitioner there were 
many pieces of evidence brought on the record by the prosecution 
which proved every word of the confession to be correct and in that 
regard we may refer to the CCTV footages, photographs, DNA tests 
and the medical evidence which had confirmed every aspect of the 
confession made by the petitioner. All such pieces of evidence have  
convinced us that the confession made by the petitioner was  not 
only voluntary but also true. After proper assessment and 
evaluation of the evidence available on the record both the courts 
below had concurred in their conclusion regarding guilt of the 
petitioner having been proved to the hilt and upon our own 
independent evaluation of the evidence available on the record we 
have found no occasion to take a view of the matter different from 
that concurrently taken by the courts below. We are also mindful 
of the provisions of section 412, Cr.P.C. according to which in a 
case where an accused person pleads guilty to the charge and he is 
convicted on the basis of such pleading guilty then he can file an 
appeal only to the extent or legality of the sentence passed against 
him and he cannot file an appeal challenging his conviction.  
 
4. 
As regards the sentences passed by the trial court against 
the petitioner which sentences had subsequently been upheld and 
confirmed by the High Court we may observe that the crimes 
committed by the petitioner were absolutely horrendous and 
barbaric and the same had been committed with a minor and 
innocent girl aged about 7/8 years. The petitioner had not only 
deceitfully kidnapped her but had also brutalized her by 
committing sodomy and rape with her and had then ultimately 
killed her mercilessly. In his pleading guilty to the charge as well 
as in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the 
petitioner had admitted committing similar offences with eight 
other minor victims and in that backdrop the petitioner did not 
Jail Petition No. 298 of 2018 
 
4
deserve any sympathy in the matter of his sentences. This petition 
is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Lahore 
12.06.2018 
Approved for reporting.  
Arif 
