The Supreme Court has lamented that politicians in general, and parliamentarians in particular, are so vulnerable that without any justification and with mala fide intentions of a public servant they can be involved in even capital claims.
"Since parliamentarians represent the people of their respective constituencies, the judge was expected to be vigilant and remain within the parameters of Section 364 of the CrPC, but he ignored this important aspect and proceeded to incorporate their names in the statement," said an eight-page judgment authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Justice Mandokhail headed a three-judge bench which acquitted a person, an MQM politician, whom a trial court had 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 on a judicial confession attributed to the appellant, which alone formed the basis of the conviction.
"It is therefore imperative to examine with utmost care, caution and consideration whether such a confession meets the well-rounded requirements of the law, namely, whether it was voluntary, true and trustworthy, especially when retracted.
"A fundamental weakness in this case relates to the manner in which the appellant was charged," stated the judgment. It noted that the appellant was taken into custody by the Ranger in 2016 about six years after the 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 which enabled the law enforcement officers to detain the appellant for a period not exceeding three months. However, the record did not reflect such notification justifying the preventive detention. It noted that while in that custody the appellant pleaded guilty to the Rangers after which he was handed over to the police on 21 June 2016 which is recorded as the date of arrest in the case. It appeared from the order 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.
"A confession is an admission of guilt by an accused to a judge during the investigation, which must be voluntary and true," says the verdict. It further explained that Section 364 CrPC read with Supreme Court rules and orders requires the Magistrate, before recording a statement, to ensure that the accused makes a voluntary and true statement and is free from influence, pressure, inducement, threat or coercion.
