ماورائے عدالت اعتراف جرم کو ہمیشہ ایک کمزور قسم کا ثبوت سمجھا جاتا ہے اور تحقیقات کے دوران کسی بھی وقت حاصل کیا جاسکتا ہے جب استغاثہ کے پاس کوئی براہ راست ثبوت دستیاب نہ ہو---اس کے علاوہ ، ماورائے عدالت اعتراف جرم کی قانونی قیمت بھی تقریبا برابر ہے ۔ واقعات کے فطری رخ ، انسانی طرز عمل ، طرز عمل اور امکانات کو مدنظر رکھتے ہوئے ، عام طور پر---ماورائے عدالت اعتراف جرم کو کبھی بھی دارالحکومت کے الزام پر سزا ریکارڈ کرنے کے لیے کافی نہیں سمجھا گیا جب تک کہ اس کی سختی سے تصدیق نہ کی جائے ۔
Judicial confession, recording of---Procedural illegalities---Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant---One of the accused persons "H" got recorded her confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate---After perusal of the evidence with regard to the confessional statement, material illegalities and irregularities in the process of recording confessional statement of appellant "H" were found---Admittedly, Recording Magistrate had provided only one opportunity with a single warning for reflection whereas she was to be provided full assurance that in case she was not guilty or was not making a confession voluntarily in this case, she would not be handed over back to police, but no such assurance was provided by Judicial Magistrate as depicted in questionnaire---Thereafter, sufficient time for reflection was to be given to the appellant after the first warning was administered---After the expiry of that, Recording Magistrate had to administer the second warning and accused was to be ensured that now she was in safe hands but in the instant case no second warning was issued to the appellant assuring her that she was in safe hands---Furthermore, all Police Officials whether in uniform or otherwise, including Naib Court attached to the Court, must be kept outside the Courtroom and beyond the view of accused but in the instant case, the Recording Magistrate directed in terms that all the un-concerned had to leave the Courtroom---Recording Magistrate also admitted in his report that questions Nos.1 to 5 were mentioned in English language and there was no such question about qualification of accused "H"---However, it was mandatory for the Recording Magistrate that the question were to be put in the language of the accused "H" either in Urdu or Punjabi but no such note of the Recording Magistrate was available on record---After giving a certificate as required under S.364 Cr.P.C., the accused was to be sent to jail on judicial remand and during that process at no occasion she was to be handed over to any Police Official/Officer whether he was Naib Court wearing police uniform or any other Police Official/Officer, but in the instant case, the Investigating Officer admitted in his examination-in-chief before the Trial Court that after recording the statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. he sent accused "H" to judicial lock up under the orders of the Area Magistrate whereas the report of the Recording Magistrate was silent about the fact that after recording her statement under S.164, Cr.P.C. what order was passed by him for further handing over the custody of the appellant---In the instant case, the Recording Magistrate did not observe minimum precautions, required under the law---Statement of the appellant "H" was recorded grossly violating the relevant law---Recording Magistrate after recording the confessional statement of the appellant "H" on oath, handed her over to the same Police Officer, who had produced her in the Court---Thus, the confession of the appellant "H" was of no legal worth to be relied upon and was excluded from consideration, more so, when she retracted it at the trial---Confession of this nature, which was retracted by the appellant, could not mutually corroborate each other on the principle that one tainted evidence could not corroborate the other tainted piece of evidence---
0 Comments