The Supreme Court has lamented that politicians in general, and parliamentarians in particular, are so vulnerable that they can be implicated in even capital charges without any justification and with mala fide intent by a public servant.
“Since parliamentarians represent the people of their respective constituencies, the magistrate was expected to be vigilant and to remain within the parameters of Section 364 of the CrPC, but he ignored this important aspect and continued to incorporate their names in the statement,” said an eight-page judgment authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
Justice Mandokhail was leading a three-judge bench which acquitted a person, an MQM politician, whom a trial court sentenced to life imprisonment for murder in 2016 on the basis of his confessional statement. The Sindh High Court (SHC) had upheld his conviction.
The judgment noted that the prosecution’s case converges only upon a judicial confession attributed to the appellant, which alone formed the basis of conviction.
“It is, therefore, imperative to examine with utmost care, caution, and circumspection whether such confession satisfies the well-settled requirements of law, namely whether it was voluntary, true, and confidence-inspiring, particularly when it was retracted.
“A foundational infirmity in this case concerns the manner in which the appellant was made an accused,” the judgment stated.
It noted that the appellant was taken into custody by Ranger in 2016 about six years after registration of the FIR under preventive detention under Section 11EEEE of the ATA 1997.
In this regard, a notification from the federal or provincial government was required, enabling law enforcers to detain the appellant for a period not exceeding three months after recording reasons. However, the record did not reflect any such notification justifying the preventive detention.
It noted that during this custody, the appellant admitted guilt before the Rangers, after which he was handed over to police on June 21, 2016, which is recorded as the date of arrest in the case.
The order stated that the appellant remained in police custody for eight days, after which his statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded, in which he allegedly confessed guilt.
“A confessional statement is an admission of guilt by an accused before a magistrate during investigation, which must be voluntary and true,” the judgment says.
It further explained that Section 364 CrPC read with high court rules and orders requires the magistrate to ensure, before recording a statement, that the accused is making a voluntary and true statement, and is free from influence, pressure, inducement, threat, or compulsion.Latest News, Breaking News & Top News Stories | The Express TribuneHasnaat MalikRead More