• In decision authored before his resignation, ex-judge Minallah highlights lack of professionalism, integrity in criminal probes
• Questions validity of judicial confessions used to convict accused; holds that appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt
ISLAMABAD: Former Supreme Court judge Justice Athar Minallah, in a recently uploaded judgement, expressed disappointment over the state of the criminal justice system, highlighting deficiencies in integrity, competence, and professionalism in investigations and prosecutions.
Justice Minallah headed a three-judge SC bench deciding an appeal filed by Said-ur-Rehman against a Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Darul Qaza Swat) verdict dated June 9, 2021.
He observed that the case reflected the inability of investigating officers to effectively discharge their statutory duties.
The case was related to the murders of two young men, Shah Faisal, 18, and Shafi-ur-Rehman, 15, in a remote area of Chitral in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The complainant, Zulekha Bibi, and her husband Gul Zaman resided with a family in Jibraik village located on the bank of Chitral River.
A bridge connecting the village to Domel was hindered by Chitral Scouts, who restricted evening crossings unless permission was granted, the judgement recalled.
Zulekha Bibi reported to Sub-Inspector Paneen Nawaz on Feb 16, 2016, that her son, Shah Faisal, and her husband’s nephew, Shafi-ur-Rehman, had gone missing.
She named eight suspects, including the appellants, alleging abduction. The complaint was received on Feb 17, 2016.
Despite disclosing a cognisable offence, it was recorded in the daily diary rather than the register under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC).
An application for inquiry under Section 156(3) CrPC was submitted to a magistrate and allowed. After making the entry, SI Nawaz arrested both the appellants.
However, the events narrated in the complainant’s testimony during the trial differed from the version recorded in the official complaint.
The appellant, Said-ur-Rehman, was convicted under Section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment, with an additional three years under Section 15(AA) PPC, to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 382-B CrPC.
The high court upheld the convictions and dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants through the impugned judgement of June 9, 2021.
The appellants challenged the decision before the SC, while the complainant also filed separate petitions against the acquittal of the co-accused.
Validity of judicial confessions
Justice Minallah observed that there was no last seen evidence except for the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the victims’ movement over the bridge, adding that the prosecution’s case rested mainly on the judicial confessions of the appellants under Section 164 CrPC.
He recalled that the SC had consistently held that a judicial confession might form the basis of a conviction if it was found to be true and made voluntarily.
Even a retracted confession retained evidentiary value if it was recorded in accordance with law and was corroborated by independent evidence.
Justice Minallah observed that the delay in recording a judicial confession, particularly while the accused remained in police custody, caste doubt on its voluntariness and necessitated heightened judicial scrutiny.
The judgement read that the prosecution’s case was in its entirety based on circumstantial evidence as there was no direct ocular testimony linking the appellants to the commission of the offence.
Therefore, their arrest was illegal, and the judicial confession, purportedly voluntary, was surrounded by serious doubts.
At the conclusion, the SC held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt and could not be convicted on the charges framed against them.
Published in Dawn, November 21st, 2025
