Confession

  1. Retracted confession can be acted upon against its maker if the same is materially corroborated by other independent evidence — Co-accused- confession- evidence. The State v. Mst. Flawat Jan and another 1992 SCR 366 (A)   
  2. Statement accomplice — value of — According to settled principle of law the statement of an accomplice cannot be made ground for awarding punishment to another accused but it can only be having the binding force to the extent of the person who made the confessional statement. Muhammad Ayub & & others v. Imran & 6 others 2015 SCR 325 (C)
  3. Exculpatory or inculpatory statement — In criminal cases, there are certain basic requirements for relying on the exculpatory or inculpatory statements for conviction — the statement should be voluntary without any coercion or inducement and also confidence inspiring and corroborated by other reliable cogent evidence. Muhammad Ayub & & others v. Imran & 6 others 2015 SCR 325 (D) 1992  SCR  366, PLD  2009 Pesh. 1 & 2000 SCMR 785, rel.
  4. Statement of accomplice — without corroboration — not reliable — Without corroboration through independent source the statement of person cannot be relied for awarding conviction in criminal cases. Even otherwise, the statement of an accomplice cannot be made ground for awarding punishment to another accused but it can only be having the binding force to the extent of the person who made the confessional statement. M. Ayub  v. Imran & others 2015 SCR 1321 (E)
  5. Section 164, Cr.P.C. — retracted confession — It is settled law that the retracted confession can be acted upon against the person who made it, if the confession was materially corroborated by other independent evidence— the question of corroboration arises when the confession is proved to be made voluntarily as per the procedure and the principles of the law regarding recording of the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (K) Azeem Khan v. Mujahid Khan and others, (Cri. Appeal No. 496 & 497 of 2009, decided on 15the October, 2015), un reported judgment  Supreme  Court  of  Pakistan, rel.
  6. Section 164, Cr.P.C. — confession — not made voluntarily — the convicts might have been induced or compelled to make confession — Held: the retracted confession of the convicts cannot be relied upon unless the same is materially corroborated. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (L) 1992 SCR 366 rel.
  7. Section 164, Cr.P.C. — where the confession is recorded without observing any requisite formalities of law, it could not be admitted in evidence at all. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (M)
  8. Retracted — strong corroborative evidence required for conviction — Another important piece of evidence on which the whole prosecution story has been built up, are the statements of convicts allegedly recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Although, according to celebrated  principle of law, for such like pieces of evidence when retracted by the deposer, strong corroborative evidence and extra-ordinary care and caution is required for awarding conviction. Falak Sher & another v. The State & another 2016 SCR 1467 (B)
  9. Reliance upon and admissibility of — for conviction — principles discussed — In the light of above analysis of the legal precedent, when the alleged confessional statements are judged on the touchstone of the enunciated principle of law, we feel no hesitation in holding that the statements according to peculiar facts are lacking the required legal standard and cannot be treated as legally admissible evidence for recording conviction against the accused. Falak Sher & another v. The State & another 2016 SCR 1467 (C)
  10. Section 164 Cr.P.C — leaving flaws while recording confessional statement — non-compliance and  ignorance of — by prosecution agency and the Magistrate — result in fatal consequences — We also deem it necessary to bring on record whether it is deliberate or unintentional that the investigating agency leaves such like flaws in the investigation which ultimately result into damaging the prosecution case. It is very regrettable that in murder cases, neither the investigating agency takes it serious to comply with the statutory requirements for recording the statement of the accused under section 164, Cr.P.C., nor the Magistrate before whom allegedly such accused are produced for recording of the statement. A deep appreciation of the alleged confessional statements recorded under section 164, Cr. P.C leads us to the conclusion that ether the Magistrate was ignorant of law or the statements have not been recorded by him. Be that as it may, the logical conclusion of such dent in the prosecution case is of fatal consequences of extending benefit to the accused. The concerned authority shall this aspect of the investigation seriously and direct the investigating officer to take proper measures and fulfil the legal requirements for recording such statement. The accused should be preferably produced before the concerned trial Court or at least before the Magistrate who is sufficiently acquainted with law so that the case should not be adversely affected. Falak Sher & another v. The State & another 2016 SCR 1467 (D) 
  11. —Must be voluntary      and        trustworthy—   if confession procured under undue influence and not corroborated then cannot be relied upon—it is well settled principle of law that the confessional statement must not only be voluntary but must be trustworthy too and in case the confession is not corroborated with other evidence or procured under undue influence then the same cannot be relied upon safely. Rashid Hussain vs The State & another 2018 SCR 260 (C) 2017 SCMR 986 rel
  12. —statement of co-accused—reliance upon for awarding conviction to co-accused—only strong corroboration of same may be made out—without strong corroboration only on the basis of the statement of co-accused recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. conviction could not be recorded. Ammad Asghar v. Tahir Sarwar & 2 others 2019 SCR 886 (A) 2015 SCR 1321 rel
  13. —statement recorded u/s 164, Cr.P.C. was not denied in statement u/s 265-D, rather admitted the same—however, disowned by convict-appellant while recording statement u/s 342, Cr.P.C.—legal effect?—Held: the denial is not sufficient for discarding the confessional statement which has been owned by convict at time of framing of charge. The statement is reliable. Nusrat Jan  v. The State & another 2020 SCR 630 (A)
error: Content is protected !!