LAHORE, Jan 1: The Lahore High Court upheld the conviction and capital punishment of Manjeet Singh, an Indian national, for causing an explosion that killed nine people and injured 59 others at Bhati Chowk in 1990.

Singh, who was arrested while crossing the border into India, was convicted of several offences and sentenced also to jail terms and fine under the Explosive Substances Act and the Pakistan Penal Code by a special court for the suppression of terrorist activities. He preferred an appeal, claiming that he was falsely implicated and was substituted for the real culprit, his namesake, who was let off.

An appellate bench comprising Justices Bashir A. Mujahid and Shaikh Abdur Razzaq noted that the appellant was arrested on Aug 31, 1990, near the Indian border and was produced before Maj Ghulam Abbas, who interrogated him and before whom he confessed that he was involved in explosions. He was produced before a magistrate, who recorded his statement under Section 164, CrPC.

The appellant, bench further noted, confessed his guilt and involvement in the case. The language and wording used by him in his statement showed its genuineness and correctness. The details he mentioned were also in his exclusive knowledge. The magistrate observed all the legal formalities before recording his confessional statement. The appellant signed his statement as Manjeet Singh and never took the objection that he was some other person and that he had been substituted for the real culprit.

He also did not raise the objection that he did not make a confessional statement before a magistrate. The appellant, the bench observed, had not furnished any explanation for keeping a fake national identity card issued in the name of a Pakistani with his photo. He was duly identified by the complainant and two of the injured in the court.

Identification in the court is valid and can be relied upon for recording conviction. The prosecution case has been established beyond a shadow of doubt, and after deep reappraisal of evidence, “we do not find any illegality, mis-reading or mis-appreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment to justify interference”, the bench said.