The Lahore High Court has restrained the Punjab Police from implicating or arresting people in cases merely on the basis of supplementary statements of complainants.
The court bound the investigation officers (IOs) to first collect incriminating evidence in support of such a statement
and then proceed in accordance with the law.
LHC Justice Asjad Javaid Ghural set seven guidelines in this regard while hearing of a case against the Daska police of keeping a woman in unlawful confinement.
As abduction, illegal arrest, confinement and trespass into the woman’s home at midnight without search warrants were proved, the court directed the Sialkot district police of ficer (DPO) to suspend Daska SHO Ikram Shehbaz and Sub-Inspector Syed Najamul Hassan forthwith for misusing their authority.
The court ordered the DPO to initiate departmental proceedings against the officials, conclude them within three
months and intimate the judicial deputy registrar.
Justice Ghural directed that no posting should be given to both the officials till the conclusion of the departmental
proceedings.
The SHO and the IO are also liable to face a criminal case, therefore, the petitioner was directed to filed a written application against abduction and illegal confinement of the woman to the DPO.
The DPO should ensure the registration of the case against them under the relevant provisions of the law forthwith, the court declared.
To eliminate the excuse for non-registration of the FIR on the ground of the petitioner not appearing before the police
for the purpose, the DPO was directed to get the case registered against the delinquent police officials in such an eventuality through any of his subordinates not below the rank of DSP.
Justice Ghural issued seven guidelines and directed the police officials to ensure strict compliance.
He declared that liberty of a person is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and no one can be allowed to curtail it on the basis of malafide and tinted exercise of authority.
A supplementary statement recorded by the complainant for involving a particular accused in an incident without disclosing the source of information is not per se an admissible piece of evidence. As such, while recording such a statement, the IO should insist upon the complainant to disclose his source of information, the court declared.
The investigating officer should not cause arrest of the accused straightaway upon the supplementary statement
of the complainant, rather he is duty bound to first collect incriminating evidence in sup- port of such a statement and
then proceed in accordance with the law.
The request of the IO for physical or judicial remand of such an accused must be accompanied by the opinion of the prosecutor concerned regarding the sufficiency of the material available against him.
Any request without the opinion of the prosecutor shall not be entertained by the area magistrate or court, as the case
may be. The area magistrate or court shall not grant remand in a me- chanical manner, rather record the reasons.
If the supplementary statement of the complainant is be- reft of the source of information regarding the involvement of an accused in a case, the magistrate or court may require the presence of the complainant before dealing with such a re-quest, the court declared
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ