Retracted judicial confession

2021 PCrLJ 839 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 164Retracted judicial confessionIndependent corroborationScope

Retracted judicial confession recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. in the absence of any independent corroboration cannot suffice all by itself for recording or upholding the accused persons' conviction.

2021 YLR 2107 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.164Retracted judicial confessionScope

Retracted judicial confession could be relied upon provided that it was made voluntarily, truthful and no major procedural irregularities had been committed whilst it was recorded.

2021 PCrLJ 1826 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 164Retracted judicial confessionIndependent corroborationScope

Confession could be used against its maker if it was found to be voluntary, true and tying into the facts of the case and there were only minor procedural irregularities.

2021 PCrLJ 81 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 40Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceDisclosure by accusedProofRetracted judicial confessionUn-broken chain of evidenceAccused was widow of deceased and on her disclosure made during investigation, dead body was recoveredAccused made confessional statement before Judicial MagistrateAccused retracted her confessional statement during trial but she was convicted by Trial CourtConfessional statement of accused was free from all taints and was made voluntarily without duress or inducement

Such statement of accused was truthful and fully fitted in with prosecution case which was recorded in accordance with law with all relevant safeguards complied with by Judicial Magistrate

Prosecution had based its case on circumstantial evidence whereby different pieces of evidence made an unbroken chain where one end of the chain touched the dead body and the other neck of accused

High Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 1609 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 324Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7(1)(a)Qatl-i-amd and attempt to Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceDelay in registration of FIRBenefit of doubtRetracted judicial confessionCrime weapon, non-recovery ofBlind murder

Retracted judicial confession alone could not form basis for convicting accused in case of capital punishment without independent corroborative evidence

No such evidence against accused was available as weapon of offence was not recovered from him

Positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory was inconsequential, in circumstances

No eye-witness to the incident was on record and there was no circumstantial evidence linking accused with the offence

Burden to prove guilt was upon prosecution who was bound to prove its case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

If single circumstance had created doubt in case of prosecution, its benefit was to go to accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right

High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and acquitted him of charge

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2020 MLD 1957 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 164Judicial confessionRetracted judicial confessionCorroboration, requirement ofScopeJudicial confession if rings true and is voluntary can be made the sole basis for the conviction of its maker

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.

2020 PCrLJN 99 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 365-A, 364-A & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(e)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of terrorismAppreciation of evidenceRetracted judicial confessionProsecution case was that the accused persons abducted the son of complainant for ransom and thereafter murdered himIn the present case, co-accused had contended that he was tortured and coerced into making the statement

Accused simply denied making any statement before the magistrate and stated that he only signed a piece of paper which was put before him

Scope

Record showed that accused was in judicial custody at the time he made his confession so it was difficult to see how the police tortured him

Even at the time when his confession was recorded, no mark of maltreatment was found on his body by the Magistrate

Accused did not mention to the Magistrate that he was making the statement because he had been tortured and after his confession, he was handed back to the jail police

Accused, therefore, had no danger of being handed back to the police as he was in judicial custody

Circumstances suggested that judicial confession of co-accused before the Judicial Magistrate was voluntary

Sufficient corroborative material was available to prove that confession of co-accused was true i.e. co-accused took the police to the place where the murdered body had been hidden which only he could have known about

Evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the relevant documents on record showed that the prosecution had proved that accused did make the confession before the Magistrate voluntarily and that it was truthful and fit in with the context of the prosecution case and was corroborated by other material on record such as the calls to mother of deceased from the mobile phone which was recovered from him

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 PCrLJ 1014 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 34Qatl-i-amd, common intentionCriminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164Appreciation of evidenceRetracted judicial confessionScopeAccused was charged that he along with co-accused committed murder of the deceased

Record showed that accused in the confessional statement had not disclosed any clear motive which prompted them to commit the murder of the deceased

Accused had stated that after selling his property, the deceased had asked them to do business with the sale proceeds

When deceased was ready to do a joint business from the sale proceeds of a property, then what was the reason for killing him was a question which found no answer on record

Post-mortem report of the deceased revealed that he had only one injury on his head, while the accused in his confessional statement had stated that three injuries with the blows of axe were inflicted to the deceased

Accused had also stated in his confessional statement that Rs. 2,00,000 were taken out from the pocket of deceased by co-accused, out of which, Rs. 80,000 were paid to him

However, during course of investigation, said amount could not be recovered from any of the accused

Accused had stated that after the occurrence they went to the house of co-accused, who asked him to take the axe and thereafter the accused left for another city

Accused had not stated that prior to leaving for another city, he had visited his house and left the axe there

Entire facts disclosed by the accused in his confessional statement were contradictory to the evidence available on record

Accused was arrested in the instant case in injured condition and was got examined through medical officer and his medical report was available on the file

Judicial Magistrate/witness had stated that he was unaware as to whether the accused had any apparent injury on his body

Circumstances, the manner and mode the confession of the accused was recorded, which was subsequently retracted, must be supported by some connecting/corroborative evidence

Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted, in circumstances, by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

2018 YLR 1481 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceRetracted judicial confessionScopeIn the present case, there was no eye-witness of the occurrence

No direct evidence was available to corroborate the retracted judicial confession and medical evidence was also not in line with the retracted judicial confession

Case against the accused was one of no evidence, in circumstances.

2018 YLR 2535 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 201, 202, 404 & 34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164

Qatl-i-amd, dishonestly causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender, intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform, misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Retracted judicial confession

Scope

Co-accused was arrested on 7-8-2011, while his statement was recorded by Judicial Magistrate on 8-8-2011, but the statement of complainant showed that co-accused was arrested on 5-8-2011, when dead body was recovered

Said facts suggested that arrest of co-accused was suppressed by police on the same day and thereafter he was kept for two days in wrongful confinement without legal authority

Even the Judicial Magistrate made no effort to examine him through Medical Officer before recording his confessional statement

Confession of co-accused could not be regarded as true and voluntary

Co-accused alleged that police had tortured him time and again for recording confession

Retracted confession, if not corroborated by independent evidence of reliable nature, could not be made basis for conviction.

2018 PCrLJ 1465 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(c)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceRetracted Judicial confessionScope

In the present case, there was no eyewitness of the occurrence and complainant charged unknown accused for the murder of his brother, by lodging FIR on 20.9.2013

Complainant and father of the deceased recorded their statements under S. 164, Cr.P.C. wherein, they charged the accused for the murder of the deceased

Accused contended that Trial Court convicted him on the basis of his confessional statement

Accused further contended that he made no confession because at the time of recording his statement, he was juvenile and was afforded no opportunity of consultation with his parents/guardian or a counsel before recording his statement, therefore, the said statement had no evidentiary value

Validity

Admittedly, the occurrence was an unseen incident and the prosecution case hinged on confessional statement of the accused

Record showed that the accused was arrested on 2.10.2013 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 3.10.2013

Accused, being a minor, was to be provided opportunity of counseling either with his guardian or with a lawyer and his confession was recorded in presence of Naib Court who was in uniform at that time

Accused being juvenile should have been provided counselling facility of guardian or a lawyer of his choice by the Judicial Magistrate before recording his confession

Judicial Magistrate afforded him no opportunity to be alone for thinking

Accused had been charged with the offence entailing capital punishment and keeping in view the intensity of the charge and minority of the accused, the Judicial Magistrate ought to be extra-cautious while recording his confession as the same could be used for his conviction in trial

Judicial Magistrate had admitted during his cross-examination that the accused did not disclose any reason for recording his confessional statement

Confessional statement of the accused did not disclose as to whether the same was made voluntarily or otherwise

Possibility of the accused, being tutored or tortured by the local police before recording his confessional statement could not be ruled out, especially when no opportunity of counselling by parents or a lawyer was afforded to him

Circumstances established that requisite care and vigilance was not taken by the Judicial Magistrate before recording confessional statement of the accused nor by the Trial Court while convicting him on the basis of said statement

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted in circumstances by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.

2018 YLR 340 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 324 & 34Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164 & 417Offences against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(4)Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, haraabahAppreciation of evidenceAppeal against acquittalRetracted Judicial confessionScopeAccused persons had made judicial confession recorded by Judicial MagistrateConfession of the accused persons did not reflect the mode and manner of the occurrence as suggested by the prosecution

Admittedly, confessions made were contradictory in nature and could not be reconciled with prosecution case rather given adverse impression about the genuineness of said statements

Admittedly, the makers of the confession were produced in handcuffs before the Judicial Magistrate

Certificates appended by the Judicial Magistrate were nowhere suggestive that their handcuffs were removed

Judicial Magistrate stated that separate order was passed in that respect, which was placed on the police file

Neither there was any occasion nor legal justification to record separate order and that too for placing the same on the police file

Such omission was sufficient to cast serious doubt about the genuineness of confessional statements

No reliance could be placed upon the confessional statements of accused persons in order to prove their culpability.

2013 MLD 632 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 164Retracted judicial confessionReliance on such confession for conviction of accusedScope­Judicial confession made by accused would not lose its value for the mere reason that it was retracted

Retracted confession of an accused, if confidence inspiring, alone was sufficient for conviction.

2013 MLD 632 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164Qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceRetracted judicial confessionReliance on such confession for conviction of accusedScope­ Accused and co-accused persons allegedly committed qatl-e-amd of deceased by inflicting knives blows

Accused made a judicial confession before the Magistrate to the effect that he had committed qatl-e-amd of deceased, however subsequently he retracted from such confession

Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under S.302(b), P.P.C

Validity

Retracted confession of an accused, if confidence inspiring, alone was sufficient for conviction

Confessional statement of accused was corroborated by the medical evidence, blood-stained clothes and its report along with recovered knife

Perusal of confessional statement of accused revealed that he had disclosed the entire occurrence before the Magistrate without any duress and coercion and he did not disclose the names of co-accused persons of having any hand in the commission of the offence

Appeal to the extent of accused was dismissed in circumstances and conviction and sentence awarded to him by Trial Court was maintained.

2013 MLD 632 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 164Retracted judicial confessionEvidentiary valueScope

For judging evidentiary value of a retracted confession it was to be seen whether the same appeared to be voluntary, without any inducement, promise, duress or coercion, and whether the same appeared to be true and voluntary

Where retracted judicial confession appeared to be voluntary and true, it was supposed to be the best evidence against the maker (i.e. accused) and could be made sole basis for conviction, without looking for corroboration.