Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Section 40: How much of information received from accused may be proved

40. How much of information received from accused may be proved.— When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. 41. Confession made after removal of impression caused by inducement, threat or promise, relevant.— If such a confession as is referred to in Article 37 is made after the impression caused by any such inducement, threat or promise has, in the opinion of the Court, been fully removed, it is relevant. 42. Confession otherwise relevant not to become irrelevant because of promise of secrecy, etc.— If such a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become irrelevant merely because it was made under a promise of secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it, or when he was drunk, or because it was made in answer to questions which he need not have answered, whatever may have been the form of those questions, or because he was not warned that he was not bound to make such confession, and that evidence of it might be given against him : Provided that the provisions of this Article shall not apply to the trial of cases under the laws relating to the enforcement of Hudood. 43. Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.— When more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons is proved,

(a)such confession shall be proof against the person; making it; and

(b)the Court may take into consideration such confession as circumstantial evidence against such other person. Explanation. “Offence”, as used in this Article, includes the abetment of, or attempt to commit, the offence. Illustrations

(a)A and B are jointly tried for the murder of C. It is proved that A said: “B and I murdered C”. The Court may consider the effect of this confession as against B.

(b)A is on his trial for the murder of C. There is evidence to show that C was murdered by A and B, and that B said: “A and I murdered C”. This statement may not be taken into consideration by the Court against A, as B is not being jointly tried.