Muhammad Yousaf vs State

Case Title: Muhammad Yousaf vs State 2008 PCrLJ 1762

Background and Facts:

Muhammad Yousaf was a resident of Sialkot district Punjab and was arrested in 2007, suspected of murdering 27 older women. His alleged, at the time, primary targets were women between 65 and 75 years old. He met them in villages in Sialkot, Gujranwala and nearby areas. He used to lie to them and claim to be a government worker or a charity worker, promising them money. Zakat and aid in their old age. Upon gaining their trust, he used to take them to barren farmlands to steal their jewellery and then killed them.

His victims were murdered by using a heavy object or by strangulation. Investigation began after reported disappearances of many elderly family members as well as discovery of multiple dead bodies in canals and old wells in the surrounding areas by the police. Some of the bodies were badly decomposed, suggesting a long history of criminal acts. Yousaf was arrested when one of his victim escaped from his attack and she went to the police describing what he looked like. When Yousaf was caught and interrogated, he confessed that he had killed 25 women while the police had only found 13 bodies. He was charged and convicted of those 13 murders along with 22 robbery charges. The issues arose regarding his extra-judicial confession and legal issues that arose post-arrest, as we will discuss further.

Legal Issues:

1) The police and the lawyers had to show strong proof that Yousaf was guilty of murder (under Section 302), robbery (under section 392) and kidnapping (under section 364). The real question remained; did they prove these charges clearly without any reasonable doubt?

2) Yousaf had confessed to his crimes but had made the statements while in police custody without the presence of any judge. The court had to decide if his confession was given freely and if the confession could be used under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.

3) The police had found stolen jewellery in Yousaf’s home. The victims’ families also confirmed that the jewellery matched what their family and relatives were wearing. Was this indirect evidence enough to prove that he killed many women without a direct witness?

4) The court had to decide if Yousaf deserved the death penalty as the victims were old and helpless women. The killings were premediated. Here the question was whether these serious reasons were strong enough to justify giving the death penalty to Yousaf under section 302.

Arguments Presented:

The prosecution’s main arguments included that Yousaf’s confession had helped the police to recover the stolen items like jewellery and cash and those items were also identified explicitly by the victim’s family. They presented forensic evidence that testified to Yousaf’s presence at the crime scene. The woman who had escaped further testified against Yousaf. Furthermore, in police records it was shown that Yousaf’s car was also seen in areas where women went missing. The prosecution further pointed out the fact that the victims were old women who were alone in village areas, showing that the crimes were carefully planned, as the women were first tricked with the promise of money and then robbed, and killed. The prosecution therefore argued that sentencing Yousaf to the harshest punishment was fair.

The defence on the other hand argued that confessions were forced by the police and should be excluded as involuntary under Article 14 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat which requires confession to be made freely before a magistrate. They argued that the jewellery identification was not reliable, as many poor villagers had the same jewellery designs. It was further argued that the prosecution only had one eyewitness who survived and provided a testimony that did not match what was written by police in the initial reports.

Judgment and Reasoning:

The District and Sessions Judge Manzoor Hussain Dogar found Muhammad Yousaf guilty of 13 murders under section 302 PPC. He was also found guilty of several robberies and kidnappings. The judge gave Yousaf the death penalty for the murders he committed and it was ordered him to pay a fine of Rs 700,000. This money was to be distributed among the victims’ families.

It was further concluded by the courts that the prosecution’s arguments that Yousaf targeted women, later killing and robbing them showed a clear pattern of the crime he committed. The judge also agreed that Yousaf’s first confession was not made in front of the magistrate. However the court also clarified that this did not matter as police had recovered the stolen items through Yousaf’s confession.

As for the woman who had survived, under Article 30 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order a confession can be used as supporting evidence if it leads to discovery of new facts. It was further said by the judge that this crime was serious as the targets were weak and helpless women. He said Yousaf “preyed upon the most defenceless members of the society for financial gain.” As Yousaf  was given death penalty, the case was sent to Lahore High Court for final approval as required by Section 374 of the Cr.P.C 1898

Key Takeaways and Significance:

This case shows that Pakistani courts are willing to convict serial killers even if there are some questions regarding how their confession was obtained. As long as there is strong evidence like recovery of stolen items or testimony from witnesses, the courts can still find the person guilty. This judgement shows how Section 302 PPC (Murder) is used in cases when there are several victims. This sets an example of how multiple murders can be tied together under Pakistan’s legal system. Comparing this to another case, known as the Pearl  case. In the Pearl case the court threw out evidences that were not obtained through correct legal procedures but here the courts were more focused on whether the facts matched up rather than how the confession was obtained. This shows that judges approach different cases using different approaches depending on the type of crime committed. This case also highlights fallacies that occur in such cases in rural areas because the police have limited forensic tools that could help them find evidence. Hence, confessions become their main source of evidence to build a case against the accused.