Mst. RAINAZ vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 20 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mst. RAINAZ VS State Ss. 164, 364 & 342---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 39 & 40---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Qatl-i-amd---Confessional statement of the illiterate lady/accused, voluntariness of---Scope---Responsibility of the Judicial Magistrate---Scope---Husband of the deceased lady first registered an FIR against brother of the deceased, however, in his supplementary statement he nominated his real younger sister---Accused/lady recorded her confessional statement before the Judicial Magistrate---Trial Court, after conclusion of the trial, convicted and sentenced the appellant (accused/lady), to imprisonment for life, primarily on the basis of her confession before the Magistrate---Validity---Record revealed that the only evidence on which the prosecution relied was the confession the appellant/accused made before the Judicial Magistrate---Confessional statement was required to be proved that it was voluntarily given and that the same was truthful---Certificate appended to the confessional statement showed that Judicial Magistrate himself recorded statement of the appellant by means of a computer who gave her statement in Pushto, her mother tongue, which he himself recorded in Urdu by means of a computer and later on read it to her by translating the same into Pushto, which she admittedly admitted as correct and then thumb impressed---Said confessional statement categorically indicated that the appellant remained in police custody for one day after her arrest on the day when she was firstly nominated in the case---Judicial Magistrate did not attend to said aspect, which had its significance for the requirement of voluntariness in confessional statement---Trial Court also ignored material aspect of the confessional statement that appellant had resiled from her confession by furnishing answer as "incorrect" to the relevant question put in her statement recorded under S. 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, and then added (in said answer) that she was arrested one day before her confessional statement and was produced before a higher Police Official who was shown to her to be a DSP Investigation---Record also showed that the Judicial Magistrate hurriedly obtained the answers to the questions (within 15 minutes) without giving her time to think over her decision at a stretch, which was so quick leaving her with no opportunity for re-thinking; she could not get proper opportunity to understand the questions to think over each one of them and thereafter to tender her replies---High Court deprecated that even if the questions were explained to the appellant, her replies should not have been recorded instantaneously---Being a young and illiterate girl, she could not have been expected to have understood and fully comprehend the questions and the serious implication of her replies, which resulted in her conviction at the conclusion of the trial---Trial Court had greater responsibility to have a demonstrable judicial understanding of other different relevant factual aspects of the case, most particularly, when there was no other independent, impartial and confidence inspiring corroborative evidence in support of the confession---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellant---High Court set aside the sentence and conviction passed by the Trial Court and acquitted the appellant---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. RAINAZ vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 20 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ