SC stresses voluntariness in judicial confessions
The Supreme Court has ruled that judicial confessions must be demonstrably voluntary, given of one's own free will and untainted by any form of coercion, inducement, or psychological distress, as it acquitted a death row convict on multiple legal grounds.
In a 30-page verdict authored by Justice Athar Minallah, the apex court observed that a confession, whether judicial or extrajudicial, must be demonstrably voluntary, made out of absolute free will and without the influence of any kind, whether a threat, inducement, promise, or even hope.
"The court must be mindful of the fact that, ordinarily, no person would confess to the commission of a crime because of its consequences and the possibility that the profound effects of being in custody and exposed to the physical and psychological distress and trauma associated with investigation and custody a person's rational thinking generally gets impaired... It cannot be ruled out that an innocent person may confess so as to free himself from the extremely distressful conditions," the ruling stated.
The court noted that, in rare cases, an accused may voluntarily confess due to genuine remorse. However, in situations where the accused remains in custody — particularly under the control of law enforcement — courts must exercise heightened scrutiny.
"It becomes an even more onerous task of the court when the circumstances are such that there is a likelihood of the accused being exposed to the influence of a person in authority, such as being in the custody of a police officer and confined in the lock up of a police station."
The bench stated that prolonged police custody prior to a confession may erode its evidentiary value. While a prompt recording of judicial confession may indicate voluntariness, delays, though not inherently fatal, warrant judicial caution.
"Though delay in recording a judicial confession by itself is not sufficient to affect its validity... a voluntary and true recorded confession, though, does not require corroboration and it may also be sufficient for conviction but, as a rule of procedure and prudence, the court requires to seek corroboration in material particulars."
Justice Minallah also stressed the need for greater care when dealing with vulnerable accused, especially juveniles, who should ideally receive support from a guardian before recording a confession.
"A court has to exercise extra caution while recording a confessional statement in case of vulnerable classes such as juveniles. It is desirable, in their case, to provide them counselling/consultation, inter alia, of a natural guardian."
Moreover, the judgment reaffirmed the settled principle that confessional statements must be accepted or rejected in entirety, their inculpatory parts cannot be relied upon while discarding exculpatory ones.
Any procedural lapse, such as failing to remove handcuffs before presenting the accused to a magistrate, could cast serious doubt on the voluntariness of the confession.
"The handcuffs must have been removed before an accused has been brought before a Magistrate for recording his confessional statement... The failure to mention this fact by a Magistrate in his report or his deposition would raise doubts regarding the reliability of a confessional statement."
The court held that even a lapse by the magistrate need not be fatal, as long as the confession appears truthful and voluntary.
FIR registration delays
In a scathing observation, the SC also addressed the widespread and persistent delay in registration of FIRs, particularly in Sindh province, terming it a grave threat to the integrity of the criminal justice system.
"This case is only a tip of the iceberg and it reflects adversely on the status of the criminal justice system."
The judgment emphasised that registration of FIRs and investigations are fundamental executive functions, and any refusal or delay in lodging FIRs undermines public trust and opens avenues for evidence tampering and false accusations.
"The officer in charge of a police station has no authority to refuse or delay its registration as mandated under section 154 of the Cr.P.C... Delay without a convincing reason gravely affects the rights of the parties, the victim and the accused as well."
The court had summoned the Inspector General of Police Sindh, and the Acting Prosecutor General, who submitted a report dated June 2, 2025, acknowledging the issue and detailing measures being taken.
However, the court found the reasons, such as cultural norms or reconciliation preferences, untenable.