https://youtu.be/ulgcYQ6aFjQ?si=eW7
2024LHC2299
Case No. Crl.Misc.No.27821-H/24
Mst. Najma Bibi Vs S.H.O., etc.
13.05.2024
Remand paper shows that it was not forwarded by the concerned, Prosecutor but amazingly the learned Magistrate not only entertained the request of the Investigating Officer, without the same being forwarded by the Prosecutor but also send the alleged detenue to the judicial lock up in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind as to whether sufficient material was available against the alleged detenue to curtail her liberty or not.
* liberty and dignity of a person have always remained sacrosanct and have been placed atop the fundamental/ human rights pedestal. Islam has conferred upon human being the highest level of dignity amongst all of Allah’s creation and secured and protected for them complete liberty within the prescribed limits.
Kh. Salman Rafiq.PLD 2020 SC 456
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
Article (9)(1) of the International Convenant on Civil and Political rights. 3 AIR 2011 SC 312
Life bereft of liberty would be without honour and dignity and it would lose all significance and meaning and the life itself would not be worth living. This is why “liberty” is called the very quintessence of a civilized existence…3
alleged detenue was not named in the crime report of the aforementioned criminal case. She was involved in the case subsequently on the so-called disclosure of the coaccused before the police. According to Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, admission of an accused before police cannot be used as evidence against the co-accused.
Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that confession of an accused before the police is inadmissible in evidence as far as admission of his own involvement in the alleged offence concerned,
in order to justify the arrest/detention of the alleged detenue is supplementary statement got recorded by him almost twenty days of the alleged occurrence but he did not disclose his source qua involvement of the alleged detenue in the alleged occurrence.
Raja Muhammad Younis .Vs. The State (2013 SCMR 669). 6 Alam Zeb .V. The State and others (PLD 2014 SC 760)
It is well settled by now that any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by police would neither be equated with First Information Report nor read as part of it.[1]
Falak Sher .vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1350)
The Apex Court in a plethora of judgments observed that supplementary statement recorded subsequently to the FIR can be viewed as improvement.[1]
1993 SCMR 550,1998 SCMR 685,2011 SCMR 379, 2011 SCMR 161 & 2003 SCMR 426
police officials abducted the alleged detenue by trespassing into her house at mid-night without any search warrants, confined her for a number of days and then created false and frivolous evidence against her in order to justify their act requires serious attention.
•√ Directions are issued to all the concerned for strict compliance in the future:-
(i) Liberty of a person is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution and no one can be allowed to curtail the same on the basis of malafide and colourful exercise of authority.
(ii) Supplementary statement recorded by the complainant for involving a particular accused in an incident, without disclosing the source of information, is not per se admissible piece of evidence, as such while recording such statement, the Investigation Officer should insist upon the complainant to disclose his source of information. (iii) 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 piece of evidence in support of such statement and then proceed in accordance with law.
(iv) The request of the Investigating Officer for physical/judicial remand of such accused, must have been accompanied with the opinion of the concerned Prosecutor qua sufficiency of the material against him.
(v) Any request sans of the opinion of the concerned Prosecutor shall not be entertained by the Area Magistrate or the Court as the case may be.
(vi) The Area Magistrate or the Court, as the case may be, shall not grant physical/judicial remand in a mechanical manner, rather record its reasons for according such request.
(vii) If the supplementary statement of the complainant is bereft of source of information for involvement of an accused, the Area Magistrate or the Court as the case may be, may require the presence of the complainant before dealing with such request.
13. Copy of this order shall be circulated amongst all the concerned for compliance through Registrar of this Court.
Disposed off. (Asjad Javaid Ghural)
Judge
Approved for Reporting
Judge
Azam*
