SC acquits convict, rules confession alone not sustain conviction

ISLAMABAD, (APP - UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News - 19th May, 2026) The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that a confession which is not voluntary, truthful, and recorded strictly in accordance with the law cannot serve as the basis for convicting an accused person, particularly when the statement has later been retracted and lacks independent corroboration.

A three-member bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, allowed the appeal of Ahmad Saeed alias Bharam alias Nagori, setting aside the judgments of the Sindh High Court and the Anti-Terrorism Court Karachi, and ordered his acquittal.

The Court directed that the appellant be released immediately if he is not required in any other case.

According to the detailed judgment, the murder case had remained unresolved for six years after its registration in 2009, with neither evidence nor suspects identified during that period. Later, the accused, who was in the custody of Rangers, was handed over to police and his confessional statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

However, the Supreme Court observed serious legal defects in the manner in which the confession was recorded. The judgment noted that the statement had been recorded under oath, which violated Article 13(b) of the Constitution, guaranteeing protection against self-incrimination. The Court held that a confession obtained under oath could not be considered voluntary and was therefore inadmissible as evidence.

<?php /*?> <?php */?>

The Court further held that the magistrate failed to fulfill mandatory requirements under Sections 164 and 364 of the CrPC, including providing sufficient time for reflection, ensuring complete freedom from police or Rangers’ influence, and obtaining signatures or thumb impressions on every page of the statement.

The judgment also observed that the confession contained unusually detailed references to multiple cases, dates, times, and Names of other individuals, creating the impression that the statement was pre-prepared rather than natural and voluntary.

The Supreme Court emphasized that a retracted confession must be independently corroborated through reliable evidence.

However, the prosecution failed to produce any eyewitness, forensic, or circumstantial evidence in support of the confession.

The Court ruled that a death sentence or life imprisonment could not be sustained solely on the basis of an unverified and retracted confession.

The judgment further noted that certain political personalities had been named in the confessional statement without being afforded an opportunity for clarification or cross-examination, which violated the right to fair trial guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution.

The Court remarked that causing unwarranted damage to the reputation of public representatives was regrettable and stressed that magistrates must act strictly within the bounds of law while recording such statements.