Custodial Torture, Police Misconduct, And Human Rights Enforcement
Overview: Custodial Torture and Police Misconduct
Custodial torture refers to physical or psychological abuse inflicted by police, law enforcement, or prison officials on detainees or prisoners. Police misconduct can include illegal detention, excessive use of force, denial of medical care, bribery, falsifying evidence, and violation of fundamental rights.
Human rights enforcement in this context ensures protection under domestic laws and international obligations (e.g., ICCPR, UN Convention Against Torture).
Legal Frameworks
1. Pakistan
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Article 9: Right to life and liberty
Article 14: Inviolability of human dignity; protection from torture
Article 10-A: Right to fair trial
Pakistan Penal Code (PPC)
Sections 330-331: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession
Section 348-349: Wrongful confinement and assault by public servants
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Sections 61-167: Rules for arrest and custody
Police Order 2002
Provides limits on arrest, detention, and use of force
Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) guidelines
2. International Law
UN Convention Against Torture (CAT)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
Case Law Examples
1. Muhammad Younus v. Province of Punjab (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 1991)
Facts:
The petitioner alleged custodial torture while in police custody, including physical assault to extract confession.
Legal Issue:
Whether custodial torture violates Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that custodial torture is unconstitutional and illegal, emphasizing that confessions obtained under torture are inadmissible.
Court ordered compensation to the victim and disciplinary action against the police officers involved.
Significance:
Landmark in affirming constitutional protections against police torture.
2. Liaquat Ali v. State (Sindh High Court, 2004)
Facts:
Petitioner was detained without arrest warrant, tortured to force confession.
Legal Issue:
Violation of procedural safeguards under CrPC and human rights provisions.
Judgment:
High Court quashed confessions obtained under duress.
Ordered FIR against police officers for misconduct and directed medical examination of the victim.
Significance:
Strengthened principle that due process and legal safeguards must be followed in detention.
3. Human Rights Case – Asghar Khan Trust v. Federation (Supreme Court of Pakistan, 2012)
Facts:
During investigation of politically sensitive cases, several detainees alleged police harassment and custodial torture.
Legal Issue:
Scope of police accountability and institutional safeguards for detainees.
Judgment:
Court directed the federal and provincial governments to:
Maintain video recording of interrogations.
Set up independent oversight mechanisms for complaints of torture.
Emphasized adherence to UN human rights standards in custody.
Significance:
Institutionalized oversight and preventive measures against police misconduct.
4. Ali Raza v. State (Lahore High Court, 2015)
Facts:
Accused claimed he was tortured in custody to admit involvement in robbery.
Legal Issue:
Whether confessions obtained through torture are admissible under law.
Judgment:
Court ruled that confessions obtained under duress are inadmissible under Section 24 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (Evidence Act).
Ordered compensation to the victim and recommended criminal proceedings against responsible officers.
Significance:
Reinforced evidentiary principle against torture-based confessions.
5. Mazhar Abbas v. Punjab Police (2018, Lahore High Court)
Facts:
Detainee subjected to severe physical and psychological torture; family filed petition for redress.
Legal Issue:
Enforcement of constitutional rights in cases of custodial torture.
Judgment:
Court granted monetary compensation to the victim.
Directed the police department to implement mandatory human rights training and adopt monitoring of detention facilities.
Significance:
Highlighted compensation and systemic reform as tools for enforcement.
6. Human Rights Commission Reports – National Cases
Facts:
Multiple cases of police brutality and custodial deaths reported nationwide (HRCP Annual Reports).
Legal Issue:
Systemic accountability and enforcement of rights.
Outcome:
HRCP filed public interest litigation leading to judicial directives for:
Registration of FIRs in all custodial torture allegations
Installation of CCTV in police lockups
Medical examination of detainees within 24 hours
Significance:
Demonstrates civil society and judiciary collaboration for enforcement of human rights.
Key Principles from Case Law
Custodial torture is unconstitutional
Violates Articles 9, 14, and 10-A.
Confessions under duress are inadmissible
Courts consistently exclude torture-based confessions from evidence.
Police accountability is enforceable
Courts can direct FIRs, criminal investigations, and disciplinary action.
Compensation and rehabilitation
Victims are entitled to financial redress and protection.
Preventive institutional reforms
CCTV monitoring, video-recorded interrogations, and human rights training mandated.
Civil society engagement
HRCP and NGOs play a role in monitoring and bringing systemic violations to court.
Summary Table of Custodial Torture Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Offense | Legal Provision | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muhammad Younus v. Punjab | Supreme Court Pakistan | Custodial torture | Articles 9 & 14, PPC | Compensation & FIR | Constitutional protection against torture |
| Liaquat Ali v. State | Sindh HC | Torture to extract confession | CrPC, PPC | Quashed confession, FIR | Due process enforcement |
| Asghar Khan Trust v. Federation | Supreme Court | Police misconduct | Constitution, HR Law | Oversight & video recording | Institutional preventive measures |
| Ali Raza v. State | Lahore HC | Torture-based confession | Qanun-e-Shahadat Order | Confession inadmissible | Evidentiary principle |
| Mazhar Abbas v. Punjab Police | Lahore HC | Physical/psychological abuse | Constitution, PPC | Compensation & reforms | Victim redress and training |
| HRCP Reports / PILs | Nationwide | Systemic police brutality | Constitution, Human Rights Law | FIRs, CCTV, medical checks | Civil society oversight |
Conclusion:
Custodial torture and police misconduct in Pakistan are addressed through a combination of constitutional safeguards, statutory provisions, and judicial oversight. Landmark case law shows a clear pattern: courts prioritize human rights enforcement, exclude torture-based confessions, mandate compensation, and implement preventive institutional reforms.
RELATED Blog
0 comments