Islamabad:
The Supreme Court ruled that judicial confessions must be demonstrably voluntary, given by free will and not contaminated by any form of coercion, induction or psychological anguish, since it acquitted a convict of death for multiple legal reasons.
In a verdict of 30 pages authorized by Judge Athar Minallah, the Apex court observed that a confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, must be demonstrated, made of absolute free will and without the influence of any kind, either a threat, incentive, promise or even hope.
“The court must be aware of the fact that, in general, no person would confess to the commission of a crime due to its consequences and the possibility that the deep effects of being in custody and exposed to physical and psychological anguish and the trauma associated with the investigation and custody of a person that rational thinking generally cannot be a person who cannot be an innocent person.
The court indicated that, in rare cases, a defendant can confess voluntarily due to a genuine remorse. However, in situations in which the defendant remains in custody, particularly under the control of the application of the law, the courts must exercise high scrutiny.
“It becomes an even more onerous task of the Court when the circumstances are such that there is the probability that the defendant is exposed to the influence of a person with authority, such as being under the custody of a police officer and confined in the blockade of a police station.”
The bank declared that prolonged police custody before confession can erode its probative value. While a rapid registration of judicial confession may indicate voluntariness, delays, although not inherently fatal, justify judicial precaution.
“Although the delay in the registration of a judicial confession by itself is not enough to affect its validity … However, a voluntary and true confession does not require corroboration and can also be sufficient for the conviction, but, as a rule of procedure and prudence, the court requires seeking corroboration in particular materials.”
Justice Minallah also emphasized the need for greater attention when it comes to vulnerable defendants, especially minors, which should ideally receive support from a tutor before registering a confession.
“A court has to exercise greater caution when registering a confessional statement in the case of vulnerable classes such as youth. It is desirable, where appropriate, to provide advice/consultation, among other things, of a natural tutor.”
In addition, the sentence reaffirmed the established principle that confessional statements must be accepted or rejected in its entirety, its accuracy parts cannot be trusted when discarding the exculpatters.
Any procedure period, such as not eliminating wives before presenting a magistrate to the defendant, could seriously put doubts about the voluntariness of the confession.
“The wives must have been eliminated before a defendant has been presented to a magistrate to register his confessional statement … the fact that a magistrate in his report or deposition would generate doubts about the reliability of a confessional statement.”
The court argued that even a period of the magistrate does not need to be fatal, as long as the confession seems sincere and voluntary.
FIR registration delays
In a scathing observation, the SC also addressed the generalized and persistent delay in the FIR registry, particularly in the province of Sindh, qualifying a serious threat to the integrity of the criminal justice system.
“This case is just a tip of the iceberg and is negatively reflected in the state of the criminal justice system.”
The sentence emphasized that the FIR registration and investigations are fundamental executive functions, and any rejection or delay in housing undermines public trust and opens roads to manipulate evidence and false accusations.
“The officer in charge of a police station has no authority to reject or delay his registration as forced to section 154 of the CR.PC. The delay without a convincing reason seriously affects the rights of the parties, the victim and the defendant also.”
The court had summoned the Inspector General of the Sindh Police, and the Interim Attorney General, who presented a report dated June 2, 2025, recognizing the issue and the detail measures that are being taken.
However, the court considered the reasons, such as cultural norms or reconciliation preferences.
