Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has decided that legal confessions must be detectable voluntary, given by one’s own free will and fuzzy of any form of coercion, incentive or psychological distress when it acquitted a death sentence for several legal reasons.
In a 30 -page verdict written by Justice At Har Minallah, the Pointed Court noted that a confession, whether legal or out of law, must be demonstrable voluntary, made by absolute free will and without any influence of any kind, whether a threat, incentive, promise or even hope.
“The court should be aware of the fact that no personally no persons confess to fulfilling a crime because of its consequences and the possibility that the deep effects of being in custody and exposed to the physical and psychological distress and trauma associated with investigation and custody, as a person’s rational thinking is generally reduced … it cannot be excluded that an innocent person can confess to free themselves from themselves. decision that has been established.
The court noted that in rare cases an accused can voluntarily confess due to real remorse. In situations where the defendant remains in custody – especially under the control of law enforcement – courts must exercise increased control.
“It will be an even more difficult task before the court when the circumstances are such that there is a likelihood that the defendant is exposed to the influence of a person in authority, such as being in the custody of a police officer and enclosed in the locking of a police station.”
The bench stated that prolonged police custody before a confession can erode its evidence value. While a rapid admission of judicial confession may indicate volunteerism guarantees delays, although they are not inherently deadly, legal caution.
“Although delay in registration of a legal confession is in itself not sufficient to influence its validity … a voluntary and genuine registered confession does not, however, require confirmation, and it may also be sufficient for conviction, but as a rule of procedure and caution requires the right to seek confirmation in material information.”
Justice Minallah also emphasized the need for greater care when dealing with vulnerable accused, especially young people who were ideally receiving support from a guardian before registering a confession.
“A court must exhibit extra caution while registering a confessional statement in the event of vulnerable classes as young. It is desirable in their case to give them advice/consultation, among other things, of a natural guardian.”
In addition, the judgment confirmed the established principle that confessional statements must be accepted or rejected as a whole, their inculpatory parts cannot be invoked while discarding Exculpatory -Terms.
Any procedural lapse, such as not removing handcuffs until presenting the defendant to a magistrate, could cast serious doubt about the volunteer of confession.
“The handcuffs must have been removed before an accused has been brought to a magistrate to register his confessional statement … The lack of mentioning this fact of a magistrate in his report or his deposit would raise doubts about the reliability of a confessional statement.”
The court found that even a lapse of the magistrate does not have to be fatal as long as the confession seems truthful and voluntary.
FIR -registration delays
In a scary observation, SC also dealt with the widespread and sustained delay in the registration of FIR’s, especially in the Sindh province, which describes it as a serious threat to the integrity of the criminal justice system.
“This case is only a tip of the iceberg, and it negatively reflects the criminal system.”
The judgment emphasized that registration of FIRs and Investigation is fundamental performing functions, and any rejection or delay in submitting FIRs undermines public confidence and opens up opportunities for evidence and false accusations.
“The officer responsible for a police station has no authority to refuse or delay his registration as a mandate in accordance with section 154 of the CR.PC. Delay without a convincing reason affects the rights of the parties, the victim, the victim and the defendant.”
The court had called on the inspector of the police Sindh and the acting prosecutor who presented a report dated June 2, 2025, recognizing the question and detailed measures taken.
However, the court found the causes, such as cultural norms or reconciliation preferences, unsustainable.
