Gulam Rabbani :
It is a random allegation against a section of the police members and magistrates that they obtain confession from the accused under duress which is contrary to the values our Constitution upholds. To do it the police in almost all cases pray to the courts for remand.
According to the Article 35(4) of the Constitution, “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” But in the recent days such confessions are taken randomly, questioning the police’s competence in investigation.
An accused can give confessional statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to a Magistrate during the course of investigation. But in most cases this section is being abused.
The High Court on September 6 rebuked a Sub-Inspector of Police, Nayan Kumar, for recording a confessional statement by using force from a minor boy who was charged with the murder of his eight-year-old brother in Bogura in 2015.
The court at the same time asked Nayan Kumar to be refrained from investigating any case as he falsely implicated
a 12-year-old child in the murder of his brother at Sariakandi. A bench of Justice Jahangir Hossain Selim and Md Atoar Rahman passed the order after holding hearing a petition filed in this regard.
“He (Nayan Kumar) had committed a serious crime by doing it (forcibly taking confessional statement). He had done so quite deliberately. It’s not just an act of negligence,” observed the High Court bench.
A special High Court bench of Justice Md Shawkat Hossain, Justice Md Ruhul Quddus and Justice ASM Abdul Mobin said in a judgement that in our criminal investigation system, the investigating agencies appear to be more interested in taking an accused on remand and extract confession from him rather than collecting reliable and scientific evidence regarding his involvement in the alleged occurrence.
The court also observed that in such a position, if the children are brought within the scope of recording confession, the purpose of punishing the real offender may fail and there is every possibility that innocent children will be victimized.
It will also keep the investigating agencies confined to remand, coercion, torture and confession based investigation and would narrow down the thorough investigation focusing on collection of better scientific evidence to bring the real offenders to book, also read the verdict.
“In our prevailing standard of policing, legalization of their confessions may also open up the scope of blackmailing their parents for extraction of illegal money.”
In the verdict the court said confession of a child in conflict with law recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not legal evidentiary and such confession cannot form the basis of finding evidence against him.
In another case filed with the Narayanganj Sadar Police Station last year after abduction of a teenage girl who was said to have been murdered, but rescued alive 51 days after she went missing from Bandar upazila.
Three accused arrested in the case gave confessional statements on August 9 in 2020 under Section 164 in separate courts in Narayanganj. In their confessional statements, the accused said that they had killed the minor girl after raping her and dumped her body in the Sitalakhya River.
But 51 days after the abduction, the girl was rescued alive. The teenager was later married and has a family.
Published reports quoting the police officials said that the underage girl had been missing since July 4. Later on August 6, her father filed a case with Narayanganj Sadar Police Station as they failed to find out her.
Following the call list of the missing girl’s mother cell phone, police later arrested three persons, Md Abdullah, 22, Md Rakib, 19, and Khalilur Rahman, 36. On August 9, the accused testified under Section 164 in separate courts in Narayanganj when they said that they had killed the minor after raping her and dumped her body in the Sitalakhya River.
Later the High Court interfered over the matter and called for the records of the case and summoned the two investigation officers.
If any confession is taken by force it will not be acceptable, said former Law Minister Barrister Shafique Ahmed. In that case, the accused has to tell the court that he has been forced to give this confession, added the former Minister.
He also said, the court also has to examine if the police members take any information from the accused by force since the police frequently demand remand of the accused.
