Judicial confession

Recovery of Chaddar on pointing out of female accused was not stained with any incriminating material, like blood, froth, etc. of deceased

No Forensic Science Laboratory report was available on record regarding the Chaddar, which was available in every house

Recovery of Chaddar was not sufficient to connect accused persons with alleged offense

Prosecution also produced evidence of torn shirt of female accused from her possession, which was allegedly torn during the occurrence but no such statement was made by sole eyewitness that during the occurrence shirt of female accused was torn who had changed the shirt after the occurrence

Such recoveries were inconsequential for the prosecution

There was no independent corroboration of judicial confession of accused persons

Evidence of sole eyewitness was not worthy of reliance

Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond shadow of doubt

If there was a single circumstance which had created doubt in prosecution case, the same was sufficient to acquit accused persons

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons as there were number of circumstances which had created serious doubts in prosecution's story

Resultantly accused persons were acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt

Appeal was allowed.

Retracted confession before a Magistrate could be the basis of conviction in a capital case.

Accused was charged that she along with her co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant after kidnapping him

Accused in her statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C did not deny making the confession

Instead accused made three main complaints that she did not know why she was brought before the Judicial Magistrate

Statement of accused was made in a hurried manner and accused was handed over to the same police who had brought her after her confession

Quite clear from the evidence of Judicial Magistrate who recorded the confession of accused that complaint had no substance, however, it was true with regard to complaint that the accused was handed back to the Investigating Officer who had brought her for her confession but it was clear from the evidence that she was handed immediately from the Investigating Officer into judicial custody

Said defect would not impinge on the voluntary and truthfulness of her confession

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, however, his sentence was reduced from death to life imprisonment

Appeal against conviction was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Principles relating to judicial confession stated.

One of the private persons had deposed that the police officials approached him, asked for his identity card and obtained his thumb impressions on blank papers and that he did not know what the police did with the papers

Police officials were as much good witnesses as any other but in this case, this view could not be subscribed to

Other private witness was not produced before the Trial Court

Case property was not produced in evidence before the Trial Court

Daily diaries in respect of departure from and arrival back into the police station were not produced

So far as confessional statement of accused was concerned, sufficient time was not given to the accused to think over his willingness to confess his guilt and the Judicial Magistrate had not recorded as to whether both the accused and co-accused were made to sit at one and the same place in the courtroom or not

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Judicial confession needs independent corroboration.

If the confession was found true and voluntary then there was no need at all to look for further corroboration.

Conviction could have been awarded on the basis of retracted confession.

Prime consideration for the admissibility of a judicial confession is its voluntary nature and secondly the truth it contains.

Even a retracted confession before a Judicial Magistrate could be the basis of convicting the accused in a capital case provided that it was made voluntary and its object must be to state the truth.

Retracted confession before Magistrate can be made basis of conviction in a capital case however it must be: (a) voluntary i.e. without threat or inducement and (b) its object must be to state the truth; assistance for which can be ascertained from (i) whether the confession appears truthful within the context of prosecution case and (ii) whether there is any other evidence on record which tends to corroborate truthfulness of the confession and (c) only minor irregularities regarding the rules concerning the recording of judicial confessions can be permitted as determined on a case to case basis, the main criteria being that such irregularities have not adversely affected the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession

Slight delay in recording the confession after arrest of accused does not affect its legality and ability of Court to rely on the same.

In case of a juvenile-accused it was desirable and appropriate that the accused should be provided counseling/consultation facility of his natural Guardian or any close blood relative

Confession should be voluntary, based on true facts and corroborated by other evidence available on record.

Any confession, even recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. would become invalid if the accused produced before the Magistrate remained in handcuff while making such confession.

Retracted confession, if corroborated by independent evidence of reliable nature, could be made basis for conviction.

Secondly, confession was proved at the trial.

Main procedural defect was that after making the confession the co-accused was handed back to the police and was not remanded to judicial custody

Co-accused also claimed in his S. 342, Cr.P.C. statement that his confession was not voluntary as in fact he and his family were threatened

Unexplained seven days delay in recording the confession was found which was not signed by him

In situations where the accused had not been warned that he would not be handed back to the police if he confessed or if he was handed back to the police after his confession the courts had found such situations to be very damaging to the voluntariness of the retracted judicial confession

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the said accused beyond any doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Retracted judicial confession can be legally admissible and used against its maker in certain circumstances.

Un-explained delay in recording confession, torture upon maker during course of investigation (even on the first day as stated by accused and not disputed), omission to mention factum of removal of handcuffs, failure by Magistrate to mention grant of time prior to making confessional statement cast serious doubt on voluntariness of confession.

Retracted judicial confession can be made basis for awarding conviction and sentence but to be on safer side, if case is merely based on circumstantial evidence, then judicial confession must be corroborated with some impeachable, independent corroborative evidence, particularly in a case where accused was held responsible for capital charge.

Conviction of an accused could be recorded on the basis of retracted judicial confessional, if the same was proved voluntary, true and corroborated by other strong circumstances of the case

Mere denial of accused in statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. that confessional statement was not voluntary or that he/she has not made such statement would not make his/her confessional statement inadmissible.

Accused can be convicted even on the basis of retracted judicial confession provided it is (a) made voluntarily, (b) is truthful and (c) fits in with case of prosecution and is corroborated by other independent evidence.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, mischief causing damage to amount of fifty rupees, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Judicial confession

Scope

Held, if the accused admitted evidence, came against him, yet the Trial Court would not be competent to straight away record a 'conviction' rather would be required to serve a 'show-cause notice' thereby making it quite clear and obvious to the accused (person pleading guilt) that as to what sentence/punishment might be fallen upon him

Trial Court before proceeding on any plea must satisfy itself that such plea was not result of any coercion or other influence

In the present case, neither the accused/appellant was ever served with such show cause nor the Trial Court ever made any effort to satisfy itself as to whether such an admission was voluntary or otherwise

Such admission would not be used as a base to record conviction without first making the maker thereof aware of consequences thereof

Such failure on part of the Trial Court would always be sufficient to declare such conviction as illegal

If the Trial Court was of the view that admission of the accused was sufficient to record conviction even then it was obligatory upon the Court to have recorded punishment for each offence

Trial Court was not competent to have ignored/avoided punishment for charged offence of murder

Case was remanded.

Even, if judicial confession is retracted, its evidentiary value is not diminished if the same gets corroboration from other facts and circumstances of the case.

Accused had voluntarily appeared in the police station by admitting his guilt and thereafter, he had made his judicial confession before the Magistrate

No direct evidence was available against the accused but strong circumstantial evidence was available on record

Medical evidence proved that the death was caused due to pressing of throat

Dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of accused

Motive behind the incident was that the deceased had married without the consent of accused

Motive was proved because accused had accepted such fact in his confession

Delay of seven days in recording confessional statement was not a sufficient reason to discard the same

Accused contented that he had recorded confession because his son was under arrest at the relevant time

High Court observed that accused did not mention such fact during his confessional statement nor did he lead any evidence in that regard

Prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Any lapse on the part of Magistrate in recording the confession cannot be treated as fatal to the evidentiary value of confession especially when the Court is satisfied that lapse on the part of the Magistrate has not in any way adversely affected the voluntariness or truthfulness of confession.

Delay in recording the confessional statement by itself is not sufficient to affect its validity, however, no hard and fast rule can certainly be laid down about the period within which the confessional statement of the accused ought to be recorded during investigation.

Retracted judicial confession could be legally admissible and used against its maker in certain circumstances and conviction could be awarded on the basis thereof.

Conviction could be awarded on the basis of retracted confession, if same appeared to be voluntarily, without any inducement, duress or coercion and was made with the object to state the truth even if there were some irregularities in recording of confession.

Retracted confession before Magistrate can be made basis of conviction in a capital case however it must be: (a) voluntary i.e. without threat or inducement; (b) its object must be to state the truth; assistance for which can be ascertained from (i) whether the confession appears truthful within the context of prosecution case and (ii) whether there is any other evidence on record which tends to corroborate truthfulness of the confession; and (c) only minor irregularities regarding the rules concerning the recording of judicial confessions can be permitted as determined on a case to case basis, the main criteria being that such irregularities have not adversely affected the voluntariness or truthfulness of the confession.

Judicial confession could not be taken as gospel truth for awarding conviction unless it fits in the undeniable facts of the case.

Delay in recording the judicial confession by the accused was not fatal in the particular facts and circumstances of the case as during the said period, the accused was in judicial custody.

Confession, which had been retracted by the accused, must be established by the prosecution that the same was true, voluntary, inculpatory and in line with the other prosecution evidence

Where there were more than one accused who had made the confession, the said confession was not mutually contradictory

Mere long custody of the accused making confession with the police per se was no ground to disbelieve confession when otherwise the same on the face of it appeared to be true, voluntary and was supported by the circumstantial evidence.

In the present case, accused was arrested on 2.11.2010 and made the confession on 12.11.2010, and had stated that absconding accused and co-accused de-boarded the abductee from his jeep; one co-accused was arrested on 11.11.2010 who made confession on 26.11.2010; yet another accused was arrested on 21.11.2010 and made confession on 8.12.2010 and both of them also repeated the same story

Despite the fact that abductee had identified the accused in court as well as in the identification parade, which was conducted on 23.12.2010, however, he did not utter a single word about the role of co-accused, who according to his confessional statement de-boarded him from his jeep at the time of his abduction

When the present accused before making confession remained in the custody of police for ten days; one co-accused for fifteen days and other co-accused for eighteen days, the Judicial Magistrate was duty bound to have provided sufficient time to the said accused persons before recording their confession

Certificate provided by the Judicial Magistrate along with the confessional statement of the accused showed that only thirty minutes were given to each accused for thinking before recording their confessional statement

When the accused had remained in the custody of police and at two occasions they were produced before the Magistrate who granted their further custody to the police, thirty minutes time to the accused for thinking before making confession did not appear to be sufficient time

Record was silent that earlier, when the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, why further custody was given to the police and at that time the confession was not made

Defence had produced some press clipping that co-accused had voluntarily surrendered before the police and had stated in press conference that he was compelled to surrender as their women folk were arrested by the police

Circumstances suggested that the confession of all the accused persons was not voluntary and true, resultantly the confessions of all the accused had no evidentiary/legal worth to be relied upon and accordingly excluded from consideration, particularly, when the accused persons had not only retracted the confessions at the trial but the same were also self-contradictory on material points.

Accused was convicted on the basis of confessional statement but material illegalities and irregularities had been committed by the Magistrate in recording the confession

Effect

Judicial Magistrate was duty bound to have asked the questions and to let the accused know that the same could be used against him

In the present case, the warning had not been administered while recording confession of accused, which was a requirement under the prescribed statute and its failure was sufficient to vitiate confession.

Qatl-i-amd, voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, attempting to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life or a shorter term, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Judicial confession

Retraction

Scope

Statement of accused under S. 164, Cr.P.C. had been recorded on oath and thus, was of no evidentiary value

Even otherwise, it was exculpatory in nature and was retracted

Weight was to be given to the statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. as compared to statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.

Confessional statement of the accused was recorded after following the procedure, which, admittedly, being not under the influence of the police, was admissible under the law and could be made basis for recording conviction.

Court was not left with any choice but to take into consideration the confession of accused in toto.

Conviction could be based on retracted judicial confession, provided it was true and voluntary and corroborated by some strong piece of independent evidence.

Accused had confessed his guilt before the Judicial Magistrate by mentioning in detail the reason of murder of the deceased

Record transpired that the confession was made voluntarily and according to the narration of the occurrence

Accused had disclosed the facts which otherwise were neither known to the complainant nor to the Investigating Officer that the deceased annoyed him by saying that he was having illicit liaison with his nephews

Confession of the accused was recorded not only in accordance with Ss.164/364 Cr.P.C. but also in accordance with the provisions of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders

Confessional statement of accused showed that it was not a premeditated murder and the occurrence took place in the heat of passions when the accused became annoyed due to the utterance of the deceased

Medical evidence it showed that the deceased received two firearms injuries, which corroborated the confessional statement of the accused wherein he stated that he fired two shots at the deceased

Circumstances and facts of the case established the guilt of accused, thus appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Extra-judicial confession could be used against the accused only when it came from the unimpeachable source and trustworthy evidence was available to corroborate the same.

If the case was merely based on circumstantial evidence, the judicial confession must be corroborated with some un-impeachable, independent corroborative evidence, particularly, in a case where the accused had to be responsible for the capital charge.

Judicial Magistrate had committed fatal irregularities, which had rendered the confessional statement inadmissible, as such no explicit reliance could be placed on such evidence, particularly, when a judicial confession was retracted one

Questions put to the accused before recording confessional statement had not been reduced into writing by the Judicial Magistrate in his own handwriting, which he was obliged to do so

Judicial Magistrate had not given sufficient time of reflection before recording statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C. as it was incumbent upon him to have had given sufficient time of reflection with three intervals, thus, Judicial Magistrate failed to observe the pre-cautions held to be necessary before recording a confessional statement

Certificate issued by Judicial Magistrate as envisaged under S. 364(2), Cr.P.C. lacked the time of reflection, recording confessional statement of the accused in his language (pushto), warning that if he recorded or not recorded the judicial confession, he would not be handed over to police again and that he himself was acquainted with pushto language

After recording of the alleged confessional statement of the accused, he was handed over to the Naib Court for remanding him to judicial lockup

Such confessional statement could neither be considered as voluntary nor admissible in evidence.

Three-fold proof was required to act upon the judicial confessions i.e. that in fact it was made; that it was voluntary and that it was truly made.

Extra-judicial confession in the shape of disclosure before the police was not liable for consideration as the same was inadmissible in evidence.

Only substantive piece of evidence with the prosecution was confessional statement of the accused, which showed that same was voluntary and according to the narration of the occurrence

Accused had disclosed such facts which otherwise were neither known to the complainant nor to the Investigating Officer that the deceased was keeping evil eyes on the sister of accused

Confessional statement in view of the disclosures of accused regarding family honour was to be believed being corroborated by recovery of pistol at his pointation and positive report of forensic expert

Record showed that confessional statement was recorded not only in accordance with Ss. 164/364, Cr.P.C. but also in accordance with the provisions of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders

Circumstances and facts had indicated that deceased first pulled out his pistol upon the accused and during scuffle, accused snatched it from him and whereafter the incident took place

Case for self defence in circumstances, was made out

Accused had exceeded the right of self-defence by firing two shots upon the deceased

Appeal was partly allowed, conviction of the accused was altered from S. 302(b) to S. 302(c) Penal Code, 1860 and as such his sentence was modified from death to fourteen years.

In order to base a conviction on the strength of circumstantial evidence, there must exist a chain comprising various links, connected with one another to constitute a nexus between the dead body and accused by excluding every hypothesis of innocence

Many such links being missing in the case, it would be unsafe to maintain accused's conviction on the basis of such circumstantial evidence

Evidence of last seen, was short of proximity in terms of time, which was sine qua non for acceptance of such evidence

Last seen evidence, in itself, was a weak piece of evidence

Alleged extra-judicial confession of accused was so detailed and comprehensive that it covered almost every aspect of prosecution case

Man, under the stress of compunction of his conscious, was not supposed to give such minute detail

Different story was narrated by the accused in his judicial confession, and said difference was irreconcilable

Judicial confession of accused merited rejection for the reason, that accused was not cautioned in writing by the Magistrate that accused would be handed over to the Investigating Officer after his confessional statement, instead record showed that there was a request by Investigating Officer for the physical custody of accused

Judicial confession was not voluntarily made, free from coercion or inducement

Deadbody, which was almost a skelton, was not identifiable

Surer method of its identification through DNA test, had not been adopted, in the case

Conviction of accused could not be maintained on basis of evidence on record

Impugned judgment, passed by the Trial Court, was set aside, extending the accused benefit of doubt

Accused was acquitted from the charge and was set at liberty, in circumstances.

Trial court convicted the accused both on basis of his judicial confession as well as the prosecution evidence and sentenced him to death and imprisonment for seven years along with payment of compensation

Accused contended that awarding the death sentence as qisas was not justified as no proof for the same was available

Complainant had not only reported the incident to the police within a short span of thirty-five minutes charging the accused by name but also citing the names of the eyewitnesses

Statement of prosecution witnesses were consistent and supportive to each other on all material aspects of the case

Medical evidence had fully corroborated the complainant's version

Recovery of crime weapon along with empties had been witnessed by an independent person of the locality, who had also appeared as prosecution witness and supported the factum of recovery

Forensic Science Laboratory report was positive with regard to the recovered pistol and empties

Although no eyewitness was available as to the act of firing made by the accused at the deceased, but statements of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the recoveries of the crime empties from the spot and the crime weapon on pointation of the accused, had fully supported the prosecution case and connected the accused with commission of the offences

Delay per se in sending the crime weapon and crime empties to the Laboratory would not overweigh the ocular evidence, which had been found in line with, and supported, by the medical evidence

Presence of the accused at the spot just after the occurrence duly armed with pistol, where the accused was lying in the pool of blood, undoubtedly showed his clear nexus with the murder of the deceased

Accused himself had moved an application to the Trial Court for pleading guilty, and thereafter, on conclusion of the prosecution evidence, he had recorded his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., whereby he had confessed his guilt

Statement of the accused recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was a confession

High Court observed that statement of an accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C. was more reliable than statement under S. 164, Cr.P.C.

Accused had admitted the report lodged by the complainant as correct

Trial court had subjected the accused to medical examination regarding his confessional statement, which was positive

According to S. 304(1)(a), P.P.C., when an accused made voluntary and true confession as to commission of the offence before the court, then under S. 302(a), P.P.C., the sentence of committing qatl-i-amd would be death as Qisas

Weakness, insufficiency or even absence of any motive in murder cases could not be considered as a mitigating circumstance for awarding lesser punishment to an accused

Prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Judicial confession, was accepted at higher pedestrian than the extra judicial confession, mainly because, the judicial confession had to be recorded by a Judicial Officer after fulfilling the requirements mentioned under Ss.164, 364, Cr.P.C.; and Chap. 3 of Vol.III of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders

After fulfilling such requirements, judicial confession was presumed to be genuine; and was admissible in evidence against accused, who made the same; but if at some latest stage, same was retracted, then court could seek corroboration from other unimpeachable source to convict accused

Sole retracted judicial confession, could be made a ground for conviction, if such judicial confession, was made, voluntarily; and was of confidence inspiring; and had not been obtained under coercion.

Accused had made a voluntary judicial confession without any coercion or duress, and it was recorded the same day of occurrence after observing all codal formalities

One of the deceased recorded his statement/dying declaration before the police prior to his death wherein he implicated the accused for the crime

Police officer who recorded such statement/dying declaration appeared before Trial Court to confirm that he had recorded such statement on the day of occurrence

Prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt

Sentence of death awarded by Trial Court was upheld

Appeal of accused was dismissed accordingly.

Notwithstanding the procedural defect in the confessional statement, a judicial confession, if it was found true, voluntary and confidence inspiring, could safely be made basis for conviction

Provisions of Ss.164 & 364, Cr.P.C., would apply to all sorts of statements and confessional statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.

Missing of the seal of the Court which recorded confession and caused no prejudice or injustice to accused, would not vitiate the admissibility of the confessional statement.