A single bench of IHC comprising Acting Chief Justice Aamer Farooq issued the directions in his detailed 21-page verdict in PTI leader Shahbaz Gill’s petition against the sessions court’s decision of granting his two days physical remand in the sedition case.
The bench said that keeping in view the allegations of torture levelled on behalf of the petitioner, the matter cannot just simply be ignored as it can entail serious consequences for future investigations. It added that though no specific prayer has been made for doing anything about the torture with which the petitioner has been allegedly subjected to, the Court is making observations and delving in the issue as arguments were addressed on it and the matter caught media attention which led to concerns being raised to the unlawful practices, allegedly, adopted by police during investigation.
The IHC bench said in the judgment, “However, it would be only appropriate that Ministry of Interior, government of Pakistan should look into the matter and appoint an inquiry officer preferably a retired judge of the High Court to examine the issue and make detailed findings on the same and also suggest ways to curb the practice.”
The bench observed, “The register/record of the Central Jail Adiala, Rawalpindi does mention certain bruises and other marks on the body of the petitioner when he was taken in.
Bench observes torture on prisoner to extract evidence is prohibited under Article 14 (2) of Constitution
Under Rule 20 of the Prison Code Rules for the Superintendence and Management of Prisons in Pakistan, when a prisoner with injuries on his body is admitted into a prison from police custody, he shall be examined immediately by the medical officer.”
Justice Aamer further said that as noted above the medical officer does mention certain marks on the body of the petitioner; however, it seems that no further action was taken on the same inasmuch as no communication was made to the sessions judge or even to the superintendent of police or office of advocate-general, Islamabad.
He mentioned that the torture in any form to extract evidence is prohibited and the basic prohibition exists in Article 14 (2) of the Constitution which provides that no prisoner shall be subjected to torture for the purpose of extracting evidence. After issuing the aforementioned directions, the IHC bench disposed of the matter.