[Sections 164, 364, 533, Cr.P.C.]
Note : Oral confession of guilt like all admissions in Civil cases should be received with great caution. "Words may easily be misunderstood by an honest man. They may easily be misconstrued by knave. What was spoken metaphorically may be apprehended literally. What was spoken ironically may be apprehended seriously. A participle, a tense, a mood, an emphasis, may make the whole difference between guilt and innocence. "Lord Macaulay.
Confession how to be recorded. Accused not warned immediately before recording confession held not voluntary. These questions must be asked before recording confession;
1. How long have you been with the Police?
2. Has any pressure been brought to bear upon you to make a confession?
3. Have you been threatened to make a confession?
4. Has any inducement been given to you?
5. Have you been told that you will be made an approver?
6. Why are you making this confession?
Handcuff should be removed. Police sent out of Court room and the accused given time to ponder and explain that he is not bound to make a confession, if he makes it, it will be used against him, whether he makes a confession or not he will not be sent back to police custody. (DB) PLD 1958 Lah. 559. Said Begum. Also PLD 1987 FSC 43 Liaqat Bahadar etc.
Lahore High Court Rules & Orders Vol. III, Chap. XIII. Procedure explained. when a person is produced before recording confession his handcuffs should be removed and all Police Officers turned out of the Court-room. He should be informed that he was before a Magistrate and whether he made any statement or not he would not be handed back to the police but would be sent to the judicial lockup. Then he should be given sufficient time to think over the matter. After that he should be warned that he was not bound to make any statement and if he did so his statement may be used against him in evidence. Then the following questions should be put to him :-
1. For how long have you been with the police?
2. Has any pressure been put on you to make a confession?
3. Have you been threatened to make a confession?
4. Has any inducement been given to you?
5. Have you been told that you will be made an approver?
6. Why are you making this confession.?
The Magistrate should satisfy that the confession is being made voluntarily and then record it. 1975 P.Cr. LJ 889 Muhammad Sharif.
Judicial confession not recorded according to High Court Rules as given in Chap. 13 Vol. III Such confession ruled out of consideration. NLR 1987 Cr. 831 Munir Ahmed etc.
Accused cannot be questioned unless a circumstance appears in evidence against him. If such question is put to him and he admits the existence of the circumstance, the statement even if it amounts to a confession cannot be acted upon at the trial. Only that material can be used against the accused which has been obtained in accordance with law, and nothing that is not so obtained is relevant. PLD 1950 BJ 5 Ghulam Farid v. Crown.
Judicial confession; no question recorded by magistrate that if the accused did not make the statement he would not be handed back to the police but would be sent to jail. The appellant remained in police custody after his judicial confession. Confession not relied upon. PLJ 1995 FSC 109, Ahmed Sher.
"Why are you making a confessional statement in a murder case." The Magistrate should have asked this question from all the accused making the confession, which he failed to do. Appeal allowed. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Pesh) 371, Murtaza etc.
No formalities of law observed. It could not be admissible in evidence at all. AIR 1936 P.C. 253 = PLD 1950 BJ 5 Ghulam Farid v. Crown.
Printed form. It is very undesirable that confessions should be made on any printed form and that the Magistrate should not be made to express his own words exactly why he considered that the confession is being made voluntarily. (DB) 47 Cr. LJ 252 Bhimappa Talwar v. Emp. 222 Ind. Case. 143 = AIR 1945 Bom. 484.
Self-exculpatory confession cannot be used against the co-accused under section 30 of Evidence Act. Cr.LJ 252 Bhimappa Talwar.
Confession not recorded according to sections 164 and 364, Cr.P.C. by Magistrate. The accused took the Magistrate round the place of occurrence and made full confession about the robbery and firing a revolver which killed a pursuer. The Magistrate made rough notes and after dictating a memorandum to the typist destroyed the rough notes. He produced the memo in Court, signed it. It contained the substance but not all of the matter to which he spoke orally. Held, that section 164 and section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be construed together and the effect of the statute is to prescribe the mode in which confessions are to be dealt with, when made to a Magistrate during the investigation, and to render oral evidence of such confessions inadmissible. It is well-recognised rule of construction that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. ILR 1936 (17) Lah. 629 Nazir Ahmed v. The King Emperor (PC).
Non compliance with mandatory provisions of Sec. 364(2) Cr.P.C. is not a mere irregularity which is curable but is an illegality which is not curable. Case remanded for retrial. PLJ 1997 FSC 52, Mst. Khial Meena etc.
Where a particular procedure is prescribed for doing a particular thing that thing has to be done according to that procedure. When prescribed procedure is not followed it would taint the entire proceedings with illegality or irregularity as the case may be. PLJ 1997 Cr.C (Kar) 33, Saeed Farooq.
Judicial confession when requirement not complied with by the Magistrate Confession not relied upon. Conviction set aside. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Kar.) 400, Manoo.
Provisions of Sec. 364, Cr. P.C not complied with while recording of statement of the accused. Defect not curable by Sec. 537, Cr.P.C. Conviction set aside. NLR 1985 Cr. 113 Muhammad Inayat.
Magistrate recording confession not examined and Magistrate not complying with legal formalities. Confession not considered. (DB) PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Kar.) 201 Dost Muhammad.
Whether warning given not on record. Nothing on record to show that warning contemplated by section 164 (3), Cr.P.C had been given to the accused. Confession, held, inadmissible, though Magistrate recording confession deposed at trial that such warning had been given. PLD 1965 Kar. 242 Ramzan.
Prescribed warning under section 164 (3), Cr.P.C. not given by Magistrate. Confession vitiated. (DB) PLD 1971 Lah. 850 Ghulam Muhammad.
No time given for thinking over before making judicial confession, u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Accused was taken to the Magistrate by the police for recording confession at 4 p.m. and his custody was handed back at 4.30 p.m. Held, accused had hardly any reasonable time at his disposal to think over before recording his confession; the circumstances cast doubt about the voluntary nature of the confession. 1993 SCMR 1822, State v. Muhammad Nazeer.
Time to think over. High Court Rules and Orders (Lah.) Vol. III Chapter XIII. Rule 13. At least half an hour to be allowed to prisoner to compose himself before making confession. It is better if more time is given e.g., 24 hours (DB) PLD 1971 Lah. 850 Ghulam Muhammad.
Time for reflection before confession. No hard and fast rule as to how much time is to be allowed. period of time depends on each case. PLJ 1981 SC 52 Gul Jamal 1980 SCMR 654.
Record silent about the circumstances under which accused was brought before Magistrate for recording confession. Accused alleging that he was forced to make a statement. Position held doubtful. Benefit given to the accused. (DB) PLD 1965 Quetta. 20 Ali. v. Adbul Majid.
Recording of statement. If questions are put by the Magistrate, but the actual questions and answers are not recorded, the defect can be cured under section 533 by the evidence of the Magistrate. (DB) ILR 18 (1937) Lah. 658 = AIR 1938 Lah. 200 Muhammad Din v. R.
When statement of Magistrate recording confession is not challenged, it is not possible to presume that the Magistrate did not record the confession of the accused without complying with the requirements of law u/S. 164(e) Cr.P.C. Inference would be that the statement was made voluntarily. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Q) 879, Abdul Ghani.
Certificate. Where the required certificate was not appended but Magistrate deposed that he had satisfied himself about the voluntariness of the confession and gone through formalities the confession was held admissible. (DB) ILR 1921 (2) Lah. 129 Umar Din v. Crown.
Recording Magistrate's evidence before committing Magistrate transferred to sessions record was excluded from consideration as not having fulfilled the requirements of section 33, Evidence Act. (Why Magistrate's presence in the trial Court was not possible not proved). No other evidence to prove confession. Confession. held, inadmissible, (FC) PLD 1952 FC 63 Amin-ul-Haq v. The Crown.
Record after Court hours. Confession recorded after Court hours in contravention of Criminal circulars. Such confession held not reliable. (DB) 1975 P.Cr. LJ 1077 Abdul etc.
Confession recorded on the 3rd day of the arrest of the accused, must be ruled out of consideration. The delay of over 24 hours would normally be fatal to the acceptance of a judicial confession. (DB) 1975 P.Cr. LJ 440 Tooh. PLJ 1975 Cr.C (Kar.) 508 (DB) PLJ 1977 Kar. 420 Abdul Majid. Overruled by (FB) PLD 1978 Quetta. 1. Shaukat Saeed. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Q) 160 PLJ 1978 SC 21 Naqibullah.
Confession during illegal confinement of the accused recorded, held, stands vitiated and has no legal value. (D.B.) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 1839, State v. Mst. Zohra Bibi and another.
Police custody. Accused remained in Police custody for 5 days before making a judicial confession. This fact alone cannot lead to the presumption that the confession was due to inducement, threat or promise. (DB) PLD 1976 Pesh. 135 Muhammad Karim PLJ 1976 Pesh. 84.
Confession after police custody. Accused remaining in police custody for some time does not affect their judicial confession. PLD 1972 SC 363. Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada v. Sobat Khan.
Delayed confession: Confession recorded after a delay of one month in Police custody considered suspicious and not relied upon. 1981 SCMR 597. Khan Muhammad etc.
Delay in recording judicial confession per se is no ground to discard it unless it is improved or emerges from the circumstances to have been obtained by coercion, threat, pressure etc. 1995 SCMR 1615. Muhammad Ismail.
Delay in recording confession not explained, held, no evidentiary value can be attached to such confession. (DB) PLD 1977 Kar. 760 Abdul Majid.
Delay per se in judicial confession is not ground to discard it unless it is proved that it was obtained by coercion, threat or pressure. Details given by appellant establish that it was true and voluntary. The confession can be used against the confessor and as circumstantial evidence against the co-accused. Death sentence maintained in triple murder case. PLJ 1996 S.C. 805, Muhammad Ismail etc.
Delayed recording of confession. No satisfactory explanation for delaying the recording of confession for two weeks, confession not relied upon. PLD 1977 Pesh. 64 Said Anwar.
Delay in recording confession remaining unexplained and if exhibiting an unconscionable state of affairs can be fatal to retracted confession. Conviction cannot be based on retracted confession alone. Such confession must be corroborated by other evidence showing that the crime must have been committed by the accused. PLJ 1999 SC 264 Abdul Latif.
Judicial confession doubtful when the accused not produced before magistrate immediately after arrest nor necessary questions put to him before recording confession. PLJ 1987 FSC 31. Liaqat Bahadar.
Judicial confession made after 5 days of arrest, and the accused not told that he would not be sent back to the police custody. Confession not relied upon. (DB) PLJ 1987 Quetta. 96. Azeem Shah.
Delay in recording confession is not fatal, when Court is satisfied that the confession is voluntary. PLJ 1985 Cr.C. (Q) 357. Kadir Bakhsh.
Judicial confession made 10 days after arrest and no reliable corroborative evidence found. Appellant acquitted. (DB) PLJ 1981 Cr.C. 162 Rajab.
24 hours delay in recording judicial confession without explanation, such confession to be ruled out of consideration. (DB) PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Q) 271 Wali Muhammad.
Judicial confession made 7 days after being in police custody. Magistrate did not take necessary precautions to remove appellant from police influence. Confession retracted at the earliest, held, no reliance could be placed on such confession. PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Kar.) 386, Syed Ali Shah.
Confession made after 16, 10 and 6 days after before a Magistrate not relied upon. PLJ 1994 FSC 56, Bijar etc.
Judicial confession recorded 10 days, after arrest ruled out of consideration. (DB) 1980 P.Cr.LJ State v. Ishaq.
Delay in recording confession may or may not be fatal. When the accused was in police custody for 11 to 15 days it was not considered fatal as the Court was satisfied that the retracted confessions were not tutored and were made voluntarily 1992 SCMR 1983, Ch. Muhammad Yaqub etc.
Confession after one month of police custody becomes doubtful and not relied upon. PLJ 1981 SC 766 Khan Muhammad etc.
Delay in recording judicial confession is not fatal. Mere delay of 24 hours in recording confession is not fatal. Surrounding circumstances are to be considered. (FB) PLJ 1978 Cr.C (Q) 160 Shaukat Saeed PLJ 1978 Q.1 PLJ 1978 1978 SC 21 Naqib Ullah.
Confession can be made at any time before the Court by the accused and not only at the time when charge is put to him. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Lah.) 23 Nazir Ahmad.
Detention in Police custody. The Magistrate recording the statement regarding a confession should ask. "How long has the accused been in police custody?" The precaution is very wise and salutary but failure to do so is not an irregularity invalidating the confession. (DB) AIR 1931 Lah. 763 Abdul Ghani v. Rex.
The confessing accused must invariably be sent to the judicial lock-up and on no account to be returned to police custody. (DB) AIR 1938 Lah. 292 Surat v. R. AIR 1937 Lah. 98 Jahanan v. R.
Judicial confession not relied on when at variance with account given in extra-judicial confession and Magistrate not telling the accused that the would not be sent to police custody, before recording the confession. (DB) 1975 P.Cr.LJ 70 State v. Haji Khan.
Some irregularities in recording of confession to be overlooked in order to judge the evidentiary value of a retracted confession when the same appears to have been voluntarily made, without any inducement, duress or coercion with the object to state the truth. 1992 SCMR 1988, Ch. Muhammad Yaqub etc.
Custody does not necessarily mean custody after formal arrest, but includes a state of affairs in which the accused can be said to have come into the hands of a Police Officer or have been under some form of police surveillance or restriction on his movements by the Police. (Section 26 and 27, Evidence Act). AIR 1932 Lah. 609 Grudial v. R. AIR 1937 Lah. 629 Allah Ditta v. R. AIR 1940 Lah. 242.
Police Custody. Mere fact that the person making confession remains in Police Custody for some time does not lead to conclusion that the confession was tutored. Judicial confession relied on. (SC) PLD 1972 SC 363 Sharif-ud-Din v. Sohbat Khan.
Mere fact that the person making the judicial confession was remanded back to police custody does not make the confession involuntary. (SC) 1969 SCMR 421 Muhammad Sharif.
Accused remained for a fortnight in police custody before making confession. Confession held not voluntary. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 769 Haji Yar Muhammad v. Rahim Dino etc. PLD 1978 Pesh. 38 Asfandyar Wali.
Accused in custody of police for 8 or 14 days before making confession. Magistrate not questioning accused as to how long they have been in police custody nor informing them that they would not be sent back into police custody after confession. Text of confession disclosing that accused had been turtored. Confession not voluntary or reliable. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 797 Akhtari Begum.
Remand to police custody. False statement indicating same to be tutored appearing in confession and person making the confession handed back to the police. Confession held to be irrelevant.(SC) 1969 SCMR 390 1969 P.Cr.LJ 958 Khuda Bakhsh v. Crown.
Confessor delivered back to police custody after recording his judicial confession. Voluntarily nature of confession. vitiated. PLD 1960 Kar. 674 Wazir etc. (DB) PLJ 1977 BJ 22 Ghulam Rasul.
Accused sent to police lock-up instead of jail after making judicial confession. No explanation was available on record to show that it was not safe to send the accused to judicial lock-up after his confessional statement was recorded; if the accused could be safely taken to police lock-up after his confession, it was not understood what risk was involved in sending him to judicial lock-up. Held, prosecution thus failed to show that the accused made the confession voluntarily. 1993 SCMR 1822, State v. Muhammad Naseer.
Magistrate not informing the accused that he would not be sent back to Police custody after recording the confession and also not questioning the accused how long they remained in Police Custody. Text of confessions disclosing that the accused had been tutored. Confession not reliable. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 797 Mst. Akhtari Begum.
Handcuffs not removed and also Police not excluded from the Court-room before recording the confession. Held, confessions of no evidentiary value. (DB) PLD 1959 Lah. 541 Subey Khan.
Accused in Police custody before and after recording confession for 24 hours but before Magistrate recording confession for only one hour. Held confession not voluntary. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 160 Hashim.
Judicial Confession not relied upon when accused kept in illegal police custody for 6 weeks before confession was recorded. 1982 SCMR 321. State v. Asfandyar Wali etc.
Confessing accused detained by Police for more than 24 hours without warrant. Voluntariness of confession doubted. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 817 Hamzo.
No formalities under sections 164 and 364, Cr.P.C. observed but when the Magistrate examined subsequently as a witness the illegality was cured under section 53, Cr.P.C. PLD 1950 Bal. 1 Chandar v. Crown.
Provision under sections 164 and 364, Cr.P.C. and High Court Lahore. Rules and Orders Chapter XIII, Volume III disregarded Punjab Government Circular No. 6091-J-36/39829 (H. Judicial) dated 19th December, 1936. Directions not complied with. Held confession not duly made and therefore, inadmissible in evidence unless the Magistrate is found to have made real and substantial inquiries which he was bound to do as to its voluntary nature before recording it. Irregularities in recording a confession can be cured under section 533, Cr.P.C. but it is only when the Court is satisfied that the confession had been made duly although it was not recorded duly. In other words the matter is one of the substance and not merely that of form. (DB) PLD 1950 Lah. 68 Bakhat Bano v. Crown.
Presumption when statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. It is true that when a witness has made a statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. he is wedded to it. The Court should scrutinise the evidence of such witness carefully. Where, however, there are good grounds for getting statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. recorded no adverse presumption arises against the prosecution simply because it has done something lawful. (DB) PLD 1954 Lah. 646. Mian Khan v. Crown. (DB) PLD 1955 Lah. 271 Crown. v. Mirza Khan.
Statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. recorded after 30 hours of the recovery of the abductee by the police cannot be relied upon as the time had been utilised to pursued the abductee to make a statement favourable to the prosecution. 1982 PSC 1433. Muhammad Iqbal.
Statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. of prosecutrix recorded 2 days after her recovery during which period she remained with the police. Possibility that such statement was made under the pressure of police cannot be ruled out. PLJ 1985 FSC 13. Sabir Hussain.
Statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. not substantive evidence but can be used to support or challenge evidence given in Court by the person who made the statement. Approver's statement cannot be corroborated by his earlier statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. (PC) PLD 1949 PC 90 Bhuboni Sahu v. King.
Statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. recorded by a Magistrate not empowered to do so can be used as corroborative evidence but not as substantive evidence. (DB) PLD 1953, Lah. 495 Muhammad Sarfraz Khan v. Crown.
Accused's statement under section 164, Cr. P.C. not amounting to confession cannot be used against co-accused but can be used against the maker. (PC) PLD 1949 PC 326 Ghulam Hussain v. King.
Statement under sections 164, Cr.P.C. not recorded during investigation. Requirements of Sections 164 and 364, Cr.P.C. not complied with. Held, admissible in evidence if found to have been voluntarily made as extra-judicial confession. (DB) PLD 1965 Lah. 715 Faqira.
Confession sections 164, 162 and 172, Cr.P.C. Accused retracted his judicial confession alleging in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. that confession was a reproduction word by word of his statement made to Police. Allegations if found to be true, Court would be reluctant to hold such confession genuine and voluntary. Accused in circumstances entitled to cross-examine both the S.H.O. and the Magistrate recording confession. Such cross-examination not barred by section 162, Cr.P.C. Section 162 Cr.P.C. is to be read with section 172, Cr.P.C. and section 159, Evidence Act. Confession before the police could be proved against accused but it could be used by accused in his favour. (DB) PLD 1974 Kar. 91 Ghulam Hussain.
Principle of Section 32 of Evidence Act is that when a person makes a statement rendering him liable to criminal prosecution, the statement is likely to be true. Where there is already in existence evidence against the accused which would inevitably lead to his prosecution and probably conviction, the section has no application. When a person made a statement incriminating others but died before the commencement or completion of inquiry, the statement was not admissible under section 32 (3) of Evidence Act. (DB) 48 Cr. LJ 242 (Pat.) Achhy Lal Singh v. Emperor.
Confession under coercion: Accused only half an hour before making confession complaining to another Magistrate about Police having beaten him to extract confession. Confession hit by section 24 Evidence Act and not admissible. (SC) 1973 SCMR 162 Samano.
Confession on repentance. If the confession turns out to be the off spring of penitence and remorse the same must be rejected. The confession which was recorded after 2« years after the occurrence was not relied upon. PLD 1994 Pesh. 102, Muhammad Riaz etc.
Doubtful and Suspicious. Statements of prosecutor's own witnesses recorded before a Magistrate under section 164, Cr.P.C. raise suspicion of statements being not voluntarily made. Such statements to be scrutinised with great care and caution. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 448 Muhammad Yasin.
Person in authority; Confession made to him cannot be thrown out unless made under threat, promise or inducement proceeding from him. (FC) PLD 1952 FC 1 Rahim Bakhsh v. Crown.
" Private persons armed with guns sent by Police to `find' the accused, who apprehended and disarmed the accused. Confession on their inducement held, not admissible. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 197. Qutba v. Crown.
Confession by a junior official to a senior official not on any inducement, threat or promise but only on the reminder of God that he should speak the truth, held confession not hit by Sec. 24 of the Evidence Act, PLJ 1990 Cr.C. (Lah.) 513 Muhammad Irshad etc.
Lambardar is a person in authority. Confession made on his inducement is not admissible. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 189. Nazir.
Confession to Lambardar relied upon when no inducement threat or promise proved. (SC) 1977 SCMR 457 Muhammad Rafiq.
Sarbarah Lambardar telling accused, if you tell me the truth I would try to save you. Held, confession made on this inducement not admissible. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 71 Muhammad Alam.
Confession made to a third person, but in consequence of implied inducement from a person in authority, held is inadmissible. PLJ 1977 Kar. 407 Muhammad Sharif.
Test of person in authority. If an accused believes in good faith, though erroneously, that a person is possessed of any authority in the matter, then that person would be person in authority qua him within the meaning of possessing that authority. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 71, Muhammad Alam.
Confession before nekmard of village to escape rigors of police investigation held, can be taken into consideration though not sufficient by itself to sustain conviction. (SC) PLD 1965 (SC) 522 Nawab.
Extra Judicial confession made to a respectable person ÿvoluntarily when not in police custody can be made basis for his conviction. (D.B) PLD 1997 Kar 311, Muhammad Akram Sheikh.
Member Basic Democracies held to be person in authority under section 24, Evidence Act. (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1137 Sardaran.
"If told truth". Promise held out by Sarbarah Lambardar but if accused did not disclose facts "he would be" handed over to police". Held, inducement and threat. Confession disregarded. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 739 Nazra.
Promise of being made an approver, held, is sufficient inducement to obtain confession. Such confession is inadmissible (DB) PLD 1972 Kar. 292 Noor Nabi.
Exculpatory statement not being confession, held admissible. An accused named in FIR one hour before lodging the FIR presented himself to S.H.O. and reported having picked up a knife in course of exchange of fist blows and injured deceased to save his own life. Such statement neither hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act nor Section 162, Cr.P.C. and hence is admissible as corroborative evidence against its maker. (SC) PLD 1971 SC 751 Suleman Shah v. Ayub and others.
Self-exculpatory confession, cannot be regarded as a confession. It is of little value even against its maker. (DB) PLD 1976 Kar. 583 Pervaiz Iqbal etc.
Admission not confession. The word confession as used in the Evidence Act cannot be construed as meaning a statement by an accused suggesting the inference that he committed the crime. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact is not of itself a confession. A statement that contains self-exculpatory matter cannot amount to confession. (PC) AIR 1939 PC 47 Pakala Narain v. The Emperor. (SC) PLD 1978 SC 200 Najib Raza Rehmani.
Statement not amounting to confession recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. can be used against the maker as admissions within purview of sections 18 to 21 of Evidence Act. (PC) PLD 1949 PC 326, Ghulam Hussain v. King.
Mere acknowledgement of subordinate facts not directly involving guilt do not amount to confession. (PC) AIR 1939 PC 47 Pakala Narain. PLD 1959 Lah. 38, Nawab.
Extra-judicial confession in case punishable with death as Qisas is no evidence. 1992 SCMR 398, Khubaib Ahmed.
Extra Judicial Confession is a weak type of evidence. It requires 3-fold proof for making it basis of conviction as it can easily be procured when there is no direct evidence: (1) Firstly that the confession was made; (2) that the confession was voluntarily made; (3) that it was truly made. 1996 SCMR 188, Sarfaraz Khan=PLS 1996 SC 467.
Extra Judicial confession is a weak type of evidence which can easily be procured. In this case the accused were not known to the witness before extra judicial confession was made. Extra Judicial confession not relied upon. PLJ 1996 S.C. 9, Sarfaraz Khan.
Extra Judicial Confession without cogent corroboration is not enough to bring case within prohibitory clause for concession of bail. Bail allowed for offence u/Ss. 392, 324, 353, 186, 109 PPC and sec 13 and 13A of Arms Ordinance, 1965. Abscondance not treated as corroborated piece of evidence. Bail plea had been rejected by Special Court No. VI at Multan. Bail allowed u/S. 497/498 Cr.P.C. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 91, Ahmed Jamal.
Extra-judicial Confession at best a weak piece of Evidence. (DB) PLD 1958 Kar. 133 Gul Muhammad.
Extra-judicial Confession must be proved by very high and unimpeachable character. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 797 Akhtari Begum.
Extra-judicial Confession. Statement from the mouth of one accused in relation to all. Held it could not be discarded as the silence of other co-accused was admissible under section 8 of Evidence Act. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 769 Yar Muhammad v. Rahim Dino.
Extra-judicial Confession to a Magistrate must be wholly excluded. (PC) AIR 1936 P.C. 253 Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor. (DB) AIR 1937 Lah. 208 Ibrahim and another v. Emperor.
Extra-judicial Confession to be relied on only when evidence in support is invulnerable. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 769 Yar Muhammad v. Rahim Dino.
Extra-judicial Confession made to disinterested person soon after occurrence considered in establishing charge of murder. (DB) PLD 1962 Lah. 498 Muhammad Arif.
Joint extra-judicial Confession by accused is of no evidentiary value and excluded from consideration. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 773 Sardar. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 197 Mamoon; 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1299. Muhammad Akram; 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1214 Mir etc.; PLD 1957 Lah. 1923 = (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Kar.) 503 Pehlwan etc.
Joint extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused could not be used against either of them. Recovery evidence even if accepted as correct could not advance the prosecution case. Acquittal maintained. 1993 SCMR 1378 (SAC) State v. Kamal Khan.
Joint Extra Judicial Confession is not admissible in evidence. (DB) PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Lah.) 205, Javid Rashid.
Extra-judicial Confession before a witness having been a Police, Mashir in a number of cases earlier, held to be reliable. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 167 Abdus Samad.
Extra-judicial Confession before a person taking prominent part from very beginning in the prosecution of the case against the accused. Held, corroborative evidence was necessary to show that: (a) the confession was made; (b) it was voluntary and true. (FC) PLD 1952 F.C. 113 Abdul Latif v. Crown.
Extra-Judicial Confession must be received with utmost caution. (SC) PLD 1951 FC 107 Ahmed v. Crown (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 34 Rahzan. (DB) PLD 1971 Lah. 850 Ghulam Muhammad.
Extra-Judicial Confession. Corroboration is not necessary when the Court believes on evidence that (a) the confession was actually made. (b) It was voluntary and true. (DB) PLD 1962 Lah. 1053 Islam.
Witness of recoveries also witness to extra-judicial confession making extremely discrepant statement in respect of recoveries, confession said to have been made before such witness not relied on. (DB) PLJ 1973 Lah. 182, Mumtaz Ahmad.
Extra-judicial Confession made to (1) A sworn enemy of the accused and (2) to person who was a friend of the opposite party, when Police had not an iota of evidence against the accused not relied on. Extra-judicial confession before a Lambardar who issued a threat not relied on. Investigating Officer not producing the accused before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest indicates undue pressure on the accused. Magistrate not putting necessary question to the accused before recording the confession. Confession not relied on. Confession made on oath by the accused not relied on. So-called judicial lockup supervised by the Police held to be police custody. Retracted confession needs independent corroboration. Tainted evidence cannot be used to corroborate tainted evidence. PLD 1973 Lah. 714 Manzur.
Extra-judicial confession to two witnesses, closely related to the complainant difficult to accept. Extra-judicial confession is always considered a weak evidence. NLR 1989 Cr. 292 Manzooran.
Extra-judicial confession made to a person not known, neither a lambardar nor a B.D. member and not in a position to help the accused held that it was not likely for the accused to have approached the PW for the confession. Confession not relied upon. (SC) 1977 SCMR 251 Allah Ditta.
Extra-judicial confession to a person who happens to be a Magistrate is admissible as extra-judicial confession. 63 1A 372 Nazir Ahmad v. K.E. distinguished. (SC) PLD 1966 SC 413 Faqira.
Extra-judicial confession without coercion or inducement before independent witnesses corroborated by circumstantial evidence held relevant. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 652 (Lah.) Riaz Ahmad.
Actual words used by the accused not reproduced, the confession was not relied upon. (FC) PLD 1954 FC 335 Ishar v. The Crown. (DB) PLD 1957 Lah. 137 Dana. (DB) 1968 P.Cr.LJ 632 Nasir Ali. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 71 Muhammad Aslam.
Judicial Extra Judicial--Retracted or unretracted, when proved to be voluntary and true conviction can be based on such confession alone. As a matter of law no corroboration is needed. Evidentiary value of confession is a matter of prudence and not law. Retracted extra judicial confession cannot corroborate retracted judicial confession. (SC) PLD 1964 SC 813. State v. Minhun (DB) PLD 1952 Lah. 345 Nawab Din v. Crown.
Satisfaction of Magistrate whether confession was voluntary. Putting the questions printed on the form whether enough. (DB) PLD 1954 Lah. 783 Juma v. Crown.
Confession being made because of `Laj' (Shame) because Police had sent for the womenfolk of the accused. Confession not voluntary. PLD 1964 Kar. 344 Fakiro etc.
Circumstances already known to Police which could be tutored to the accused cannot serve as corroboration. (DB) PLD 1964 Pesh. 1 Hakim Gul. (DB) PLD 1964 Kar. 269 Qalandar Bakhsh etc.
Facts in advance knowledge of Police stated in confession can only corroborate the confession when confessor had not done so at the instance of prosecution. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 753 Amir Ali. (DB) PLD 1964 Pesh 1 Hakim Gul.
Judicial confession whether voluntary. Legal formalities not complied with. Corrections in the statement not signed by the accused. Confession ruled out of consideration. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C.(Kar.) 190. Noor Muhammad Shah.
Confession u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. whether retracted or not as rule of caution must be supported by some connecting evidence. 1992 SCMR 950, State v. Waqar Ahmed. Case ref 1969 SCMR 442, Nadir Hussain; 1971 SCMR 341, Habib Ullah; PLD 1964 S.C. 813 State v. Minhun.
Judicial confession recorded in presence of co-accused, such confession not to be considered against the appellants. PLJ 1985 Cr.C. (Kar.) 219. Muhammad Shafiq etc.
Confession Judicial. Case involving appellant for the murder of his wife. Judicial confession of the appellant of his guilt. Trial Court rejecting ocular testimony but convicting appellant on the basis of his confession. Corroboration of his confession lacking. Confession also conflicting with other evidence on the record. Held, trial court erred in relying on uncorroborated judicial confession and convicting appellant. Appellant given benefit of doubt and acquitted. PLJ 1973 Kar. 244 Allah Dad.
Judicial confession when not admissible. The principal requirement introduced by the amending Act in section 164, Cr.P.C. is that a Magistrate before recording any confession should explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and if he does so it may be used in evidence against him. The confession becomes inadmissible if this essential requirement is not complied with (DB) AIR 1925 Lah. 367 Mst. Rao v. Crown; AIR 1925 Lah. 432 Bahawala v. The Crown. PLD 1971 Lah. 850 Ghulam Muhammad.
Judicial confession when not admissible. (Section 164, Cr.P.C.) Magistrate must ask the person making the confession whether he was doing so voluntarily and should record the answer. If this is not done the defect is not curable under section 533, Cr.P.C., and the confession is inadmissible. Telling the accused that he should make his statement voluntarily and questioning him whether he was making it voluntarily are two different things. Non-compliance with this requirement makes confession inadmissible. (DB) ILR 1921 (2) Lah. 325 Farid v. Crown.
Judicial confession (Sections 164 and 364, Cr.P.C.). Confession not recorded in question and answer form, held admissible. (DB) PLD 1950 Lah. 212. Wali Muhammad v. Crown.
Statement recorded u/S. 337, Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as confession as pre-requisites u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. are missing. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 380. State v. Miftah ud Din. PLD 1991 Pesh. 124.
Judicial confession: Corroboration is not always necessary if it is used against the maker. (DB) PLD 1957 Dacca 523, State v. Aftab-ud-Din PLD 1954 FC 197 ref.
Judicial confession recorded on oath, and statement of accused not recorded in its entirety. Statement retracted subsequently. Held not a voluntary and not properly recorded confession. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 481. State v. Mumtaz etc.
Judicial Confession whether illegal and not admissible in evidence when recorded on oath: Held confession on oath is admissible in evidence against the accused even it is against the express provision of law. The illegality is curable u/S. 537 Cr.P.C. if it does not cause failure of justice. Appeal dismissed. 47 Cr.L.J. (1946) 772 (Lah.) (D.B) Karam Elahi v. The Crown.
Confession on oath inadmissible. (SC) PLD 1956 SC 420 Muhammad Bakhsh. PLD 1973 Lah. 714, Manzoor 1992 P.Cr.L.J. 955 (Kar.) Tariq Pervaiz.
Deposition of accused on solemn affirmation, conviction on it cannot be maintained. 7 Cr.LJ 131. Anthony v. Emp. 3 MLT 138.
Solemn affirmation is not oath, and according to section 6 of Oaths Act as amended in 1981 by Ord.XXVII, is that Muslim is to make an oath. A statement made u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. not on oath but on solemn affirmation is not a statement u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. in accordance with law. A witness resiling from such statement cannot be punished u/S. 193, PPC. PLJ 1986 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 50. Nazar Muhammad.
Confession on oath. (Section 364, Cr.P.C.). Statement purporting to be confession reciting that the accused after the administration of warning was asked to give statement which he believed to be true before God. Held, the confession was recorded on oath, not withstanding the form. Being on oath confession was irrelevant. (DB) PLD 1971 Kar. 299 Gulab Khan. Contra. (DB) 47 Cr.LJ 772 Karam Elahi AIR 1947 Lah. 92.
Inculpatory confessional statement but retracted at trial, such statement would be acceptable for conviction even without corroboration. (DB) NLR 1989 Cr. 536 Sher Zaman etc.
Retracted confession but found voluntary, needs corroboration. Recovery of blood-stained weapons held to be sufficient corroboration. (DB) PLD 1964 Kar. 197 Lakhmir.
Retracted Judicial confession can form sole basis of conviction. Conviction upheld when confession found to be true and voluntary. 1989 SCMR 446. Wazir Khan.
Confession u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. retracted and not corroborated by any other piece of independent evidence, held, not sufficient to convict the appellant. Appeal allowed. PLD 1990 SC 484. Muhammad Amin.
Retracted judicial confession cannot be made sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated by other material evidence. In the instant case recoveries of weapons of offence and pieces of dead body sufficiently corroborated the retracted confession. Conviction maintained. (DB) PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 103. Shakil Khan.
Retracted judicial confession u/S. 164, Cr.P.C. can be made basis of conviction, but where not a single piece of untainted evidence available, held, it was not safe to maintain conviction. PLJ 1990 SC 65, Muhammad Amin.
Retracted confession: not corroborated in material particulars, and the procedure for recording judicial confession not followed by the Magistrate. Confession not relied upon. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Kar.) 42, Minhon and another.
Retracted judicial confession is admissible in evidence provided it is found to have been voluntarily and freely made. (D.B) PLD 1995 Kar. 112, Wazir Gul.
Retracted confession: Courts generally refrain from basing conviction/solely on retracted confession and have always sought for some reliable corroborative evidence regarding material particulars in the confessional statement. Occurrence was unwitnessed. Accused acquitted. 1995 SCMR 351, Muhammad Yousaf.
Retracted confession should not be acted upon unless corroborated in material particulars. 1969 SCMR 442, Nadir Hussain v. Crown.
Retracted confession can be taken into consideration provided it is fully corroborated by authentic evidence as regards factum of crime and accused's connection with that crime. 1993, SCMR 1574, Javed Masih.
Retracted confession without corroboration cannot be made basis of conviction unless it is corroborated material particulars. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 592, (D.B.) Abdul Rahim.
Retracted confession under Islamic Law, held, when a confession is retracted, retraction shall be accepted and he shall be absolved from hadd punishment unless the confessional matter is proved by other evidence. PLJ 1991 FSC 61. Arif Nawaz Khan etc.
Judicial confession when retracted does not lose its value if it is corroborated by other evidence direct or circumstantial, which is essential. 1992 SCMR 754, Arbistan etc.
Retracted Confession: The Court must satisfy itself that the confession was voluntary and true and that it is corroborated by some independent direct or circumstantial evidence to ensure safe administration of justice. 1995 SCMR 1359, Muhammad Akram and 4 others.
Retracted confession should be accepted only when it is corroborated by clear, cogent and independent evidence. It is a rule of prudence. The corroboration should be of material particulars connecting the accused with the crime. PLD 1995 S.C. 336, Bahadar Khan.
A retracted judicial confession is sufficient for conviction but as a rule of procedure the courts seek corroboration of the same on all material particulars. 1991 SCMR 942. Muhammad Gul etc.
Retracted extra-judicial confession unless corroborated in material particulars it is not prudent to base conviction on its strength alone. PLD 1991 SC 150. Noor Muhammad.
Retracted Judicial confession made in presence of co-accused casts serious doubt on its voluntariness. The object of legal and judicial insistence on meticulous observance of formalities and precautions is to ensure absolute freedom of confessional statement from slightest tinge or taint of extraneous, influence, like threat, promise or inducement or even of persuasive influence. Such confession not relied on. (SC) PLD 1975 SC 187 Dhani Bakhsh PLJ 1975 SC 158.
Retracted judicial confession must be corroborated and also even if confession is voluntary must be shown to be true. (DB) PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Rwp.) 220 Ghulam Muhammad.
When judicial confession rejected, extra-judicial confession, which is a weak type of evidence, also rejected. NLR 1987 Cr. 831. Munir Ahmad.
Retracted confession. No sentence of Hadd or Tazir can be passed on retracted confession for an offence u/S. 10 of Zina Ord. VII of 1979. Retrial ordered. (FSC) NLR 1982 Cr. 198 Allah Bux etc.
Retracted extra-judicial confession cannot corroborate retracted judicial confession PLD 1966 Kar. 242 Ramzan. (DB) PLD 1978 Pesh. 38 Asfandyar Wali.
Judicial confession retracted even if found to be voluntary and true still the demand of prudence would be not to make it the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated by some circumstance. (DB) PLD 1975 Pesh. 230 Javed Iqbal.
Retracted confession, as a rule of prudence, cannot be made basis of conviction unless corroborated by some other evidence. Appellant claiming to have made confession due to maltreatment of his women folk and under fear of Police. Mere recovery of crime weapon and blood-stained clothes from the accused not enough to uphold conviction. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ 325 Rasul Bakhsh.
Retracted confession. Sole evidence being retracted confession corroborated by recoveries. To base conviction both confession and recoveries must be beyond suspicion. Police officer arranging confession to be taken in Dak Bungalow and before Second Class Magistrate but not disclosing reasons for doing so. Held, confession was suspicious and conviction bad. Further held that the confessing accused should not be returned to the Police custody. (DB) AIR 1937 Lah. 98 Jahana v. Emperor.
Judicial confession retracted at earliest opportunity. No independent corroboration forthcoming in the case. Conviction and sentence set aside. (DB) 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1174 Mst. Zohra.
Retracted confession when corroborated by prosecution evidence, held, the confession can be legally considered. 1980 SCMR 937. Inayat Masih.
Retracted confession but found voluntary: needs corroboration. Recovery of blood stained weapons held to be sufficient corroboration. (DB) PLD 1964 Kar. 197 Lakhmir.
Retracted confession during trial but not before committing Magistrate and corroborated by recovery of blood-stained dagger, coupled with ocular evidence, held, reliable. (SC) 1971 SCMR 341 Habib Ullah.
Retracted confession cannot be used against co-accused. However, reference may be made to it to strengthen other evidence to prove complicity of co-accused. (SC) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1230 Abdul Alim.
Rectracted Judicial confession. Judicial confession suffering from defects of form and substance and retracted at earliest opportunity. No independent corroboration of such retracted confession found. Confession not according to sections 164, 523 read with High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III, Chapter 13, Rule 5, accused acquitted. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.L.J. 775 Mst. Bano.
Retracted confession should not be acted uponunless corroborated in material particulars. (SC) 1969 SCMR 442 Nadir Hussain v. Crown (DB) PLD 1951 Lah. 352 Sher Bahadar v. Crown.
Retracted confession of accused may be read in corroboration. (DB) PLD 1959 Kar. 7 Kadir Bakhsh.
Judicial confession exculpatory qua the maker and inculpatory qua the co-accused, not relied upon as sole basis for conviction as it could be the result of police 3rd degree methods. NLR 1990 Cr.482 Shabir Hussain Shah.
Exculpatory judicial confession cannot be used against co-accused, as laid down in Article 43 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. PLJ 1990 FSC 80. Spin Bacha etc.
Confession of co-accused under Islamic law does not implicate the accused. However, it can be considered a circumstance against the accused requiring corroboration. PLJ 1991 FSC 61. Arif Nawaz Khan etc. PLD 1991 FSC 53.
Confession by one accused against co-accused under Article 43 of Qanune Shahadat Order Court can take into consideration a confession made by one person against himself and can also take into consideration against another person as circumstantial evidence. PLJ 1995 FSC 193, Atlas Khan.
Retracted confession of co-accused (Art. 43 Qanune Shahadat Order) only evidence in case u/S. 302/109 PPC. Appellant acquitted. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Pesh) 1762, Mst. Zafran.
Confession of co-accused when not as a result of coercion, threat or pressure, held, delay per se in recording it is not sufficient to disbelieve it. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Q) 1527, Khawand Bux etc.
Statement of co-accused exonerating themselves but implicating others cannot be used against others, as they were probably persuaded to support prosecution case to get themselves exonerated. 1991 SCMR 244. Abdul Rehman.
Confession of co-accused even when admissible, was not evidence and could not be considered and conviction could not be based on it. PLD 1991 SC 898. Shabi-ul-Hassan.
Confession of co-accused. It is settled principle of law that conviction cannot be legally maintained on the basis of confession of co-accused. Bail allowed. (DB) PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Kar.) 402, Mumtaz Ali Sheikh.
Confession of co-accused is not confession as required u/S. 11 of Hudood Ordinance. Confession if proved to be voluntary and made without pressure would be proof against its maker but would have an effect of circumstantial evidence against his other accomplice. PLD 1997 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 463, Muhammad Nadeem.
Confession of co-accused cannot be used as substantive piece of evidence as basis of conviction of the other accused but can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence if other substantive evidence is available on record. PLJ 1997 FSC 143, Gul Sambar Khan v. Damad Khan etc. Also see PLJ 1997 FSC 159, Muhammad Kahlil.
Accused involved by co-accused in his confession case not one of conspiracy and no corroborative evidence existed. Conviction set aside. 1990 SCMR 203. Abdul Karim.
Confessional statement of co-accused requires strong corroboration for conviction of the accused. PLD 1994 S.C. 314, Javed Masih etc.
Confession of co-accused, cannot per se sustain conviction and in order to achieve that object it must be corroborated by independent evidence in some material particular. (DB) 59 IC 913 Kher Singh v. Emp.
Confession of co-accused cannot be made foundation of conviction but it may be used in support of other evidence. It is evidence of weak character. 1992 SCMR 1983 Muhammad Yaqub etc.
Confession of co-accused cannot form the basis of conviction. Conviction set aside. (FSC) NLR 1981 Cr. 358 Ghulam Ali.
Statement of co-accused against appellant not considered against him unless corroborated by reliable evidence. PLJ 1981 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 359 Muhammad Amin.
Confession of co-accused is not evidence against the other accused, more so when it is retracted and is uncorroborated. 1982 SCMR 321. State v. Asfandyar Wali etc.
Retracted Extra-judicial confession of co-accused unless corroborated in material particulars cannot be made basis for conviction. 1986 SCMR 467. Noor Muhammad.
Confession of co-accused though could be taken into consideration yet it could not be treated as a corroboratory fact. Confession of co-accused unlike testimony of accomplice is of no corroborative value, as it is not on oath or subject to cross-examination. 1980 SCMR 654 Gul Jamal PLJ 1981 SC 52.
Confession of co-accused cannot be made sole basis of conviction without independent corroboration. PLJ 1985 FSC 85. Mst. Safia Bibi.
Confession of co-accused if believed is sufficient for his conviction as well of co-accused. PLJ 1980 Cr.C. 118 Muhammad Halim Chauhan.
Confession of accused to be read as a whole when conviction is based on it. (DB) NLR 1985 Cr. 263 Muhammad.
Confession to be accepted or rejected as a whole; the rule applies when there is no other evidence available or the available evidence is not trustworthy. (DB) PLJ 1980 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 125 Mian Jan.
Confession of co-accused is admissible against another only so far as equal implication is concerned. Confessor implicating another for offences of murder and concealment of dead body while implicating himself only so far as concealment is concerned. Confession will be admissible against another so far as offence of concealment is concerned. (DB) AIR 1937 Lah. 127 Mangal Singh and another v. Emperor.
Confession of co-accused is a matter to be taken into consideration, it does not have the quality of evidence. Co-accused cannot be convicted on `sole' basis of confession of fellow accused and much less on retracted confession. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 313 Joygun Bibi. (FB) PLD 1978 Lah. 523.
Confession of co-accused can only be adverted to in relation to another accused if `there is other evidence' direct or circumstantial, linking such accused with crime. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 382 Maqbool Hussain.
Confession of co-accused requires corroboration having been that of an accomplice. (SC) 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1124; Mst. Mehrun Nisa v. Crown.
Retracted confession of one co-accused cannot corroborate retracted confession of other co-accused. PLJ 1981 SC 52 Gul Jamal 1980 SCMR 654.
Confession of co-accused is no evidence in itself and should not be treated as such. PLD 1972 Lah. 563 Shera etc. AIR 1935 Lah. 230 Jahangiri Lal v. Emp. (DB) 1972 P.Cr.LJ 1302 Kalandar Bakhsh (SC) PLD 1960 SC 313.
Considered against co-accused. Accused making confession affecting himself and co-accused. Such confession, held, could be considered against co-accused as well. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 625 Zahir-ud-Din.
Confession of co-accused is evidence of weak character. (PC) PLD 1949 PC 90 Bhuboni Sahu v. King. (FB) PLD 1978 Lah. 523 State v. Z.A. Bhutto.
Confession of accused charged with minor offence not sufficient to corroborate confession of co-accused charged with grave offence. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 753 Amir Ali.
Confession of co-accused is obviously evidence of very weak type. It does not indeed come within the definition of evidence contained in section 3 of the Evidence Act. It is not required to be given on oath, nor in the presence of the accused and it cannot be tested by cross-examination. It is much weaker type of evidence than the evidence of an approver which is not subject to any of those infirmities. PLD 1949 PC 90 Bhuboni Sahu v. King; Also See PLD 1956 SC (Ind.) 186 Nathu v. State of V.P.
Accused's statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. not amounting to confession is inadmissible against co-accused though admissible against himself. (PC) PLD 1949 PC 326 Ghulam Hussain.
Joint trial; confession by one co-accused. One of the three co-accused in a joint trial pleaded guilty after the charge. He wanted to produce witnesses for good character and was not sentenced at once. Held, his confession was admissible against other accused under Section 30, Evidence Act. ILR 6 Lah. 176 = AIR 1925 Lah. 435 Fakhar-ud-Din v. Crown.
Confession of co-accused. When one of two or more persons jointly charged pleads guilty, his confession is not evidence against others; that his trial comes to an end with his plea of guilty and it is unfair to defer convicting the accused who plead guilty in order that their confession may be considered as against the other persons being tried with them 35 CWN 490 Muhammad Yousaf v. Rex.
Confession is not substantive evidence against other accused. It must be corroborated. (SC) PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 382 Maqbool Hussain.
Exculpatory confession of co-accused. High Court holding confession only to be self-exculpatory, acquitting confessing accused. Supreme Court holding confession to be genuine taking same into consideration against other accused. (SC) PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 254 Ghulam Qadir.
Confession of fellow accused does not have the quality of evidence and co-accused cannot be convicted on sole basis of such confession. (SC) PLD 1960 SC (Pak.) 313 Joygun Bibi.
Where all the accused went together with the Police and took out the property from the place where it was buried at one and the same, time, but there is no evidence that they or any of them said before where it was buried, it was no discovery within section 27, Evidence Act, aIR 1931 Sindh 154 Dito v. R.
Sukhan's case. In a murder case, during the investigation the accused is alleged to have made statement to the Police, `I had removed the Karas, had pushed the boy into the well and had pledged the Karas with Allah Din,' and in consequence of information so received the Karas were recovered from Allah Din, which were identified as those worn by B, deceased at the time of his disappearance. Is the whole or any part of the aforesaid statement admissible against the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act, and if the latter, how much,? Held by Full Bench, that the statement by the accused that he had pledged with Allah Din the Karas subsequently recovered from the latter was admissible under section 27 of the Evidence Act, but the rest of the incriminating statement could not be received in evidence. (FB) ILR 10 Lah. 283 Sukhan v. The Crown. (The above was approved in Kottaya. v. R., 51 CWN 474 (PC).
"Weapon of offence" the word is confessional. The statement of police officer reading. Both the accused at this place told me that the dagger, weapon of offence, was kept by them in the house. "Held, confessional and liable to be excluded u/S. 27, Evidence Act. Courts zealously guard against admission of statements amounting to confession even though accompanying and explaining facts. Sec. 8 to be read subject to Ss. 25,26 and 27 of Evidence Act. 1980 SCMR 654 Gul Jamal PL 1981 SC 52.
Admission in F.I.R. Accused making F.I.R. not amounting to confession but appearing as a circumstance against him can be rightly taken into evidence and relied on. (SC) 1970 SCMR 857 Din Muhammad. AIR 1934 PC 227 rel.
F.I.R. by the accused to the Police containing a confessional statement is inadmissible. AIR 1948 Lah. 19 Mohammada v. R. AIR 1948 Lah. 43 Lal Khan v. R.
Confession by an accused in Judicial lock-up to a fellow prisoner is not inadmissible because a policeman who is to guard the lock-up was present. AIR 1934 Lah. 75. (DB) Imam Din.
Corroboration by "last seen with deceased." Extra-Judicial Confession held, to be corroborated by the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused (DB) PLJ 1976 Lah. 769 Muhammad Yamin.
Confession not put to the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C., held, caused prejudice to the accused and conviction was set aside. (FC) PLD 1956 FC 300 Munawar Ahmad.
Accused wishing to rely on his own confession, can do so. Section 25 of Evidence Act is no bar. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ (Lah.) 370 Hasil v. Emp.
Person becoming accused after making of confession is included in the term accused used in section 24 of Evidence Act. Hence confession made to a Lambardar on the promise of his help is not admissible in evidence. (DB) 48 Cr.LJ 651 (Lah.) Surjan Singh v. Emp.
Trial by Magistrate who recorded confession of the accused is bad in law. PLD 1957 Pesh. 128 Gulab Shah. Contra. PLD 1964 Kar. 348 (Commitment proceedings not illegal).
Statement of accused in a corruption case in a trap raid were held to be not admissible for non-compliance with sections 164, 364 and 533, Cr.P.C. which were examined in detail by the Full Bench in Ghulam Abbas. PLD 1968 Lah. 101 But this authority was overruled by the Supreme Court holding that such statements were admissible. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 278 Muhammad Sarwar (SC) 1971 SCMR 187 State v. Ghulam Abbas and Rasul Bakhsh.
Use of statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. can only be made to discredit the evidence given by the witness in Court and not for any other purpose. Such a statement cannot be treated as substantive evidence of the facts stated therein. (PC) AIR 1946 PC 45 Muhammad and others v. Emperor PLD 1949 PC 90 Babuni Sahu v. Emperor.
Who can get the statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. while the investigation is in progress. A statement under this section may be recorded not only ant the instance of the Police, but also at the instance of the accused or the aggrieved person or at the request of the witness himself. (DB) PLD 1953 Lah. 495 = 52 Cr.LJ. 1425 Muhammad Sarfraz v. Crown.
Judicial confession commands more sanctity than extra-judicial confessions. (DB) 1972 P Cr.LJ 76 Arbab.
Judicial confession verbatim copy of Urdu statement of accused before police translated into English by Magistrate, not relied upon. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 375. Mohammadia v. Zari Bacha.
Voluntariness of confession Test: Confessing accused shown to have been arrested on 16th May, 1951, and making a confession next day while he could have been arrested on 9th May. Voluntary nature doubtful. (DB) PLD 1953 Lah. 49, Muhammad Sadiq v. Crown.
Confession whether voluntary? Conviction based on confession written and signed but voluntariness not considered. Conviction set aside. (PC) 1982 PSC 307. Ajodha.
Motive for confession: One of the questions which the Magistrate recording the confession should ask is "Why are you making this confession, knowing that it may be used against you?" When motive for confession is not asked the confession is of little value. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ (1942 Pat.) 36 Dikson Mali etc. v. Emperor.
Exculpatory portion can be rejected only when there is reliable evidence showing it to be false. (DB) PLD 1961 Lah. 146 Ghulam Muhammad. (DB) PLD 1959 Lah. 442 State v. Jamalan. (DB) PLD 1960 Lah. 359 Khan Muhammad.
When a part of confession can be accepted: When there is no other evidence than the confession it must be accepted or rejected as a whole,. where there is other circumstantial or ocular evidence which contradicts part of confession the Court can accept only that part which is consistent with other evidence. (DB) PLD 1958 Pesh. 147: Juma.
Half inculpatory and half exclulpatory: Confession recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. half inculpatory and half exculpatory containing palpable mis-statement and recorded in manner casting serious doubt on its voluntariness. Held, not reliable. (SC) PLD 1957 SC 187 Dhani Bakhsh PLJ 1975 SC 158.
Admission made by accused is to be relied upon in its entirety unless any part can be safely belied by prosecution evidence. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 258 Ghulam Muhammad.
Confession or admission when made sole basis of conviction must be considered as a whole and in toto. It is evidence against as well as for the accused. (DB) 1972 Cr.LJ 76 Arbab.
Judicial confession to be read as a whole: Confessional statement cannot be split up for using part of it against the maker. (SC) PLJ 1978 SC 293. Najib Raza Rehmani.
Confessional statement to be relied upon in its entirety. Where there is no evidence that the right of self-defence was exceeded. PLD 1988 SC 25. Mashal Khan.
Confession to be read as a whole: Accused admitting having caused injuries to deceased and also explaining circumstances in which injuries were caused. Held, the Court should place reliance on the whole statement and not on a part alone. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 34 Muhammad Bakhsh. (SC) PLD 1978 SC 200 Najib Raza Rehmani PLJ 1978 SC 293.
Confession has to be accepted or rejected as a whole. Where conviction was based solely on confessional statement making out a case of grave and sudden provocation. Appeal accepted and sentence reduced to 3 years R.I. PLJ 1994 S.C. 361, Nazeer Hussain v. Nawaz etc.
How to judge probative value of confession? Consider (a) Character and duration of custody of the accused/confessor, (b) Whether the confessor was in a position to get advice from relatives or lawyers, (c) the quantum of proof available with the prosecution before the confession was made, (d) whether the confession is consistent with the other evidence. Retracted confession must be corroborated by other evidence (DB) PLD 1960 Pesh. 74 Fazal Rehman.
Confession to be taken as a whole, inculpatory and exculpatory statements are to be considered as a whole, and together. NLR 1989 Cr. 101. Hamid Ullah Khan.
Admission of accused cannot be split up and part of it used against him. Held, conviction on such statement illegal, accused acquitted.1990 SCMR 1953. Muhammad Aksar.
Confession not taken as a whole: Conviction can be based on confession and exculpatory portion not accepted when other evidence shows the exculpatory portion is false. (DB) PLD 1961 Lah. 146, Ghulam Muhammad. (DB) PLD 1959 Lah. 442 State v. Jamalan.
Confession to be taken as a whole: Confession or admission of accused must be taken as a whole. Accused can be convicted on his own statement even if the prosecution evidence is rejected. PLD 1958 Lah. 142 Fazal Hussain. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Kar.) 503 = (DB) PLD 1961 Kar. 240. Baboo.
Admission must be used as a whole or not at all; PLD 1964 Pesh. 12. (FB) Ghulam Farid. (DB) PLD 1960 Dacca 813 Madan Lal.
Confession disregarded when contrary to prosecution evidence on the point. Admission of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. that he attacked the accused not considered when prosecution eye-witnesses did not make such allegation (SC) 1977 SCMR 7 Muhammad Khan v. Khizar Hayat.
Illegal custody of confessing accused for several days before confession, medical evidence contradicting time manner, distance and place of firing. Such confession not relied upon. (DB) NLR 1989 Cr. 545. Farooq Khan.
Plea of guilty in a capital case does not authorise the court to convict the accused without recording prosecution or defence evidence. NLR 1984 Cr. 374. Khan Beg.
Plea of guilty in murder case: It is not in accordance with usual practice to accept plea of guilty in a case where the natural sequence would be a sentence of death. (DB) 3 Cr.LJ 337. Emp. v. Chinia Bhika Koli.
Confession in murder case, held, as a matter of caution, instead of holding accused as guilty after his confession it is advisable to record evidence and give decision on merits. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (AJK) 87. State v. Jahandad Khan etc.
Admission by accused of accusation, when made to the court, the court should before recording conviction ask the accused why he should not be convicted. When it was not done so the conviction was set aside. NLR 1991 Cr. 32 (2) Shera = PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 117. (DB) PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 473 Mahmood Khan.
Statement u/S. 342 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as confession, as the provisions of Sec. 342 Cr.P.C. do not warrant that trial Court should warn of caution accused before his answers are recorded that if he confesses or admits anything, same will be used against him. Sentence of death cannot be awarded so lightly. 8 Bom. L.R. 240, Emp. v. Chinia Bhika Koli ref. (DB) PLJ 1983 Cr.C. (Lah.) 249, Muhammad Shafi etc.
"Pleads guilty" merely recording of is not enough for conviction. Trial Court should record admission as nearly as possible in words of the accused. The accused should also be asked as to why he should not be convicted because of his admission of his guilt. Case remanded to trial court for retrial. PLJ 1998 Kar. 38, Naseem Saigol v. Altaf Hussain.
After pleading guilty the Court must ask the accused why he should not be convicted. On failure to ask the question the conviction was set aside. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 242 Zahoor Ahmed v. Muhammad Sarwar Khan etc.
Even if accused admits his guilt for offence punishable with death or life imprisonment the Court is required to examine prosecution evidence. Trial Court directed to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 499, Habib-ur-Rehman.
Withdrawal of plea of guilty: confession in police custody: confession of co-accused etc: Full Bench held; when the accused at the time of making an incriminating statement is enfeebled by illness and is undefended, withdrawal of the plea can be allowed if the accused wishes to withdraw it.
2. No part of incriminating statement whether amounting to confession or not written by accused himself while in police custody is admissible either against him or against the person jointly tried with him unless it has led to the discovery of any fact within the terms of section 27, Evidence Act.
3. A deposition not amounting to a confession of a person recorded on solemn affirmation by a Magistrate is admissible against the deponent only but not against the person jointly tried with him.
4. A statement made by an accused to the committing court must be recorded in the form prescribed by Sec. 364, Cr.P.C. but any defect in the statement can be cured by proving it by the evidence of the Magistrate.
5. A confession of an accused is not admissible under section 30, Evidence Act against a co-accused if the former is convicted on his own plea of guilty (FB) 1915 PLR No. 222. The Crown v. L.C.E. Shuldham.
Plea of guilty after first plea of not guilty, when charge was framed does not warrant conviction without recording of evidence. Case remanded for retrial. NLR 1986 Cr. 974. Bijan Mubashir. NLR 1986 Cr. 850 Faiz Muhammad.
Zina Hudood confession: When confession is retracted neither hadd nor taazir can be imposed. Case remanded for retrial. PLJ 1982 FSC 14. Allah Bakhsh.
Principles to judge evidentiary value of confession are:
(1) Whether the confession is exculpatory, negating the alleged offence.
(2) Self-exculpatory statement by accused is not confession.
(3) Retracted confession is sufficient to sustain conviction for capital offence if the court holds it to be voluntary and true but the rule of prudence demands that it is corroborated by other evidence in material particulars.
(4) Confession of co-accused cannot be made a foundation of conviction but it may be used in support of other evidence.
(5) The confession of co-accused is evidence of weak character.
(6) Under Islamic law the confession to be acted upon should be voluntary and not because of coercion, duress or violence.
(7) Delay in recording of confession may or may not be fatal to the retracted confession depending on facts such as the accused were in custody of police for 11 to 15 days and whether the court was satisfied that the retracted confession was not tutored and was in fact voluntarily made.
(8) That any lapse in recording confession by a Magistrate has not in a way adversely affected the voluntary and truthful nature of the confession.
(9) Evidence of an accomplice if not corroborated in material particulars is not to be acted upon. Evidence of one accomplice cannot corroborate the evidence of another accomplice.
If the Court is convinced about the voluntary and truthful nature of the confession irregularities in the recording of the confession are to be overlooked. 1992 SCMR 1983, Ch. Muhammad Yaqub etc. Cases referred: PLD 1949 P.C. 90, Bhuboni Sahu; 1969 SCMR 442, Nadir Hussain; 1974 P.Cr.LJ. 325, Rasul Bux; 1986 P.Cr.LJ 1153, Muhammad alias Mandoo; PLD 1990 S.C. 484, Muhammad Amin; PLD 1972 S.C. 363, Syed Sharifud Din Pirzada v. Suhbat Khan; PLD 1979 S.C. 53, Z.A. Bhutto; 1991 SCMR 942, Muhammad Gul etc.; 1992 SCMR 950, State v. Waqar Ahmed; 1992 SCMR 196, Daniel Boyd etc.