Confession before police

2025 YLR 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 397 & 34Qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intentionAppreciation of evidenceConfession before policeInadmissible in evidenceAccused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by firing during the commission of robbery

Appellants confessed to the offence whilst in police custody however they were not produced before a Magistrate to record their confessions under S.164, Cr.P.C, despite being produced before a Magistrate for an identification parade

Thus, no reliance could be placed on the appellants' confessions allegedly made before the police

Such fact did not appeal to logic, reason or commonsense that the appellants would confess to such a serious crime as the present one which carried the death penalty whilst in police custody when there was no evidence against them in the case and they were being detained in an illegal arms case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2024 YLR 1127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 377 & 210Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 38, 39 & 40

Qatl-i-amd, unnatural offence, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Recovery of corpse on the disclosure and pointing out of accused

Confession before police

Not admissible

Accused was charged for committing sodomy with the son of complainant and later strangulating him to death

Complainant immediately after acquiring information from the witnesses of last seen approached Investigating Officer

Three private witnesses along with Investigating Officer traced accused sitting in a hotel of a village

Astonishingly, accused took no time in admitting his guilt before police and even volunteered to get the dead body recovered

Under Art. 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, no confession of an accused made before a Police Officer could be proved against him

Likewise, Art. 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, bars the proving of a confession made in the police custody

Combined effect of both these Articles is to the effect that confession of an accused made before a Police Officer, either in the custody or otherwise, is inadmissible

Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, provided an exception to the rule embedded in Arts. 38 & 39

According to the exception contemplated in Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, an incriminating fact discovered in consequence of an information provided by an accused while in the custody of a Police Officer could still be proved against him

Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused, thus his conviction was found to be suffering from perversity

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

2024 PCrLJ 33 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorismAppreciation of evidenceConfession before police

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the father of complainant along with two others by firing

Accused confessed to the offence whilst in police custody, however he was not produced before a Magistrate to record his confession under S. 164, Cr.P.C., despite being produced before a Magistrate for an identification parade

Thus, no reliance on his confession allegedly made before the police could be placed

Moreso, it did not appeal to logic, reason or common sense that the accused would confess to such a serious crime which carried the death penalty whilst in police custody when there was no evidence against him at the time of his arrest

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed.

2024 MLD 474 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.302, 119, 109 & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(a)Qatl-i-amd, public servant concealing design to commit offence, abetment, common intention, act of terrorismAppreciation of evidenceConfession before policeNot admissible in evidenceAccused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant by firingNotable that the accused confessed to the offence whilst in police custody

However, accused was not produced before a Judicial Magistrate to record his confession under S.164, Cr.P.C, despite being produced before a Judicial Magistrate for an identification parade

Thus, no reliance could be placed on confession of accused allegedly made before the police

Said fact did not appeal to logic, reason or commonsense that the accused would confess to such a serious crime as the present one which carried the death penalty whilst in police custody when there was no evidence against him at the time of his arrest

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

2023 MLD 1972 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Confession before policeAdmissibility

Confession made by an accused person while in police custody is not admissible.

2023 YLR 2072 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302 & 380Qatl-i-amd, theft in dwelling houseAppreciation of evidenceConfession before policeScope

Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother of the complainant and also steeling his car and other precious articles from his flat

Record showed that the accused confessed before the police numerous times that he murdered the deceased

Confession before the police was inadmissible in evidence

Accused was not taken before a Judicial Magistrate to record his confession

Record transpired that one Investigating Officer was prevented by his superiors from having the judicial confession of the accused recorded

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

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

2023 YLR 780 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302, 324, 353, 186, 332, 109 & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, hurt, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Confession before police

Scope

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused made indiscriminate firing upon Police Party, as a result of which two Police Officials were killed at the spot, while one sustained fire arm injury, however, police party also retaliated in self-defence

Record showed that the accused confessed the offence whilst in police custody

Confessions before the police were inadmissible in evidence

No reliance could be placed on such confession

Even otherwise, it did not appeal to logic, reason or commonsense that a person behind bars against whom there was no evidence would confess to an offence which carried the death penalty

Confession of accused was also not recorded before a Magistrate despite the accused being taken before a Magistrate for an identification parade

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

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside convictions and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

2023 MLD 562 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324, 114 & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention, act of terrorismAppreciation of evidenceConfession before policeScopeAccused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant by firingConfession of the accused persons before the police that they committed the murder was inadmissible in evidence

No effort was made by the police to record the confession of the accused persons under S. 164, Cr.P.C., before a Judicial Magistrate despite their being produced before a Judicial Magistrate for an identification parade

In the present case, it did not appeal to logic, reason or common sense that the accused whilst in custody in a non-capital punishment case would admit to their involvement in such case without their being a shred of evidence against them for that offence

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

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

2022 PCrLJ 1710 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 364-A & 377Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 39SodomyAppreciation of evidenceMedical evidenceOffenceDeterminationConfession before policeAccused persons were alleged to have abducted complainant and committed sodomy with himTrial Court convicted both the accused persons for abducting complainant and sentenced them to imprisonment for lifeValidityMedical evidence was a corroborative piece of evidence coupled with statement of victim

Evasive denial without any allegation of false implication had concluded that offence of sodomy punishable under S. 377, P.P.C. was established

Prosecution's case carried two versions, one introduced by complainant/victim and another brought on record through disclosure of one convict

Confession before police was discarded as the same was not admissible in evidence

Other details or narrations mentioned/made in such disclosure could not be accepted also

Statement/any piece of evidence was to be accepted or rejected in toto and not otherwise

Version introduced by accused persons could not be trusted, as the same was not worthy of credit

Carnal intercourse was committed with complainant and the same was proved on record

High Court altered the charge framed for an offence punishable under S. 364-A, P.P.C. to offence of sodomy captioned as unnatural offence punishable under S. 377, P.P.C.

High Court reduced sentence of imprisonment from life to ten years

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2022 YLR 2276 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 436 & 34Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3 & 4Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7Appreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtConfession before policeScope

Accused were charged for throwing hand cracker in the chowki of Rangers with intention to commit murder of Rangers Personnel, to create terror and to cause damage to the Government property

Record showed that the accused confessed to the offence whilst in police custody

Confessions before the police were inadmissible in evidence and thus no reliance on such confessions could be placed

High Court observed that none of the accused confessing to the offence were brought before a Magistrate to record their confessions despite they being brought before a Magistrate for an identification parade

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

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

2021 YLR 244 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

ConfessionConfession before policeScope

Such confession was inadmissible in law.

2020 PCrLJN 190 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 38Confession before policeScope

Confession of accused before the police had no evidentiary value.

2019 PCrLJ 1218 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 497Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 37, 38, 39 & 40Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)-AQatl-i-amd, common intentionBail, refusal ofConfession before PoliceScope and effect

Petitioners (two in number) contended that neither they were nominated in the FIR nor any evidence was available against them for committing double murder

Record revealed that no one was nominated in the FIR and initially the Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet under "A" Class, but later on when the petitioners were arrested by the Police in other cases of recovery of weapons under S. 23(1)-A of Sindh Arms Act, 2013, during the investigation of said cases, they confessed their guilt of committing double murder

Although confession before Police, during investigation, had no evidentiary value in the eyes of law under Arts. 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 but, in the present case, empties which were secured from the place of occurrence and got tested from Forensic Science Laboratory, were found matched with the weapon recovered from the possession of one petitioner

Such corroborative evidence i.e. of Forensic Science Laboratory report, prima facie, connected one petitioner with the offence

Article 40 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was the only exception to Arts. 37, 38 & 39, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which showed as to how much of information received from accused would be proved

Stance of one petitioner was that he committed double murder on the instruction of other petitioner, therefore, at bail stage, when trial had already started and prosecution witnesses were being examined, release of the petitioners would hamper the proceedings of the case

Sufficient evidence was available to show that petitioner had committed non-bailable offences

Material on record revealed that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioners were involved in the present case

Bail was refused to the petitioners, in circumstances.

2016 MLD 934 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 302(b)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceBenefit of doubtConfession before policeDelay of sending articles to Forensic Science Laboratory

Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to imprisonment for life mainly on the ground of confession made by him before police

Accused had not confessed his guilt before competent Court of law, therefore, his alleged statement before police amounted to confession before police and such statements had no evidentiary value under Art. 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Positive report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding crime empties and pistol was delayed without any plausible explanation and the same would not advance prosecution case

No direct or circumstantial evidence was available to bring home the guilt of accused

So many circumstances existed creating serious doubts in prosecution case which had gone to its roots

One substantial doubt could be enough for acquittal of accused

Rule of benefit of doubt was essentially a rule of prudence and the same could not be ignored while dispensing justice in accordance with law

Conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt arising in prosecution case must be resolved in favour of accused

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

Appeal was allowed under circumstances.

2016 PCrLJN 130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 386 & 34Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(h) & 6(2)(k)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 38Terrorism, extortion of money, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, common intentionFalse implicationBenefit of doubtDelay in lodging FIRConfession before policeScopeAccused were alleged to have given life threats to complainant and thereby tried to extort money from himTrial Court, convicting accused, sentenced them to five years' imprisonment along with fineFIR was lodged with delay of four days, which had not been fully explainedNo one had seen throwing of parcel into house of complainantComplainant had retained the parcel at his house for four daysMobile phone number shown to have been used was not in the name of accusedAccused had confessed his guilt during interrogation, which was inadmissible in evidenceComplainant admitted that accused had been his driver

Accused alleged that complainant had been removed from his service on his complaint, and complainant was, therefore, hostile towards him

Complainant's evidence, in given circumstances, required independent corroboration, which was lacking

Investigating Officer admitted to have arrested accused while patrolling along with his staff on spy information, but no arrival and departure entries had been produced for satisfaction of court, which cut root of prosecution case

High court, giving benefit of doubt to accused, set aside conviction and sentence

Appeal was allowed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 877 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 38Confession before policeAdmissibility as evidence

Alleged confession of accused during police investigation while in custody had no evidentiary value and same could not be used against him.