20/08/2026
2026 SCMR 1139
PLJ 2026 SC (CrC) 81
مفرور ملزم اپنی دانستہ غیر حاضری اور جرح کے ضائع شدہ حق کو بعد میں اپنے دفاع کا ذریعہ نہیں بنا سکتا؛ قانونی شرائط پوری ہونے کی صورت میں سابقہ عدالتی شہادت اس کے خلاف استعمال کی جا سکتی ہے۔
عدالتِ عظمیٰ نے قرار دیا کہ عمومی اصول یہ ہے کہ ملزم کے خلاف وہی شہادت استعمال کی جا سکتی ہے جو عدالتی کارروائی میں ملزم یا اس کے وکیل کی موجودگی میں ریکارڈ ہو اور جس پر جرح کا مؤثر موقع دیا گیا ہو، جیسا کہ دفعہ 353 Cr.P.C. کا تقاضا ہے۔
تاہم قانون میں اس اصول کے محدود استثنائی حالات موجود ہیں، خصوصاً:
آرٹیکل 46 قانون شھادت— مرنے والے شخص کا بیان یعنی dying declaration۔
آرٹیکل 47 QSO 1984 — سابقہ عدالتی کارروائی میں ریکارڈ شدہ شہادت کا بعد کی کارروائی میں استعمال، بشرطیکہ فریقِ مخالف کو پہلے موقعِ جرح حاصل تھا اور گواہ بعد میں فوت، لاپتہ، ناقابلِ شہادت ہو گیا ہو یا اسے غیرمعقول تاخیر/خرچ کے بغیر پیش کرنا ممکن نہ ہو۔
دفعہ 512 Cr.P.C. — جب ملزم مفرور ہو اور فوری گرفتاری کا امکان نہ ہو تو عدالت اس کی غیر موجودگی میں استغاثہ کے گواہوں کے بیانات ریکارڈ کر سکتی ہے۔
اہم اصول یہ قرار دیا گیا کہ جو ملزم جان بوجھ کر مفرور ہو کر عدالتی عمل سے بچتا ہے، وہ اپنی ہی غلطی سے فائدہ نہیں اٹھا سکتا (Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria)۔ لہٰذا مفرور ملزم کو بعد میں یہ اعتراض کرنے کا حق نہیں کہ اسے سابقہ کارروائی میں جرح کا موقع نہیں ملا، اگر اس کا جرح کا حق اس کی اپنی دانستہ غیر حاضری کے باعث ضائع ہوا تھا۔
اہم نکتہ: آرٹیکل 47 QSO اور دفعہ 512 Cr.P.C. کو باہم پڑھنے سے سابقہ کارروائی میں ریکارڈ شدہ شہادت بعد کے مقدمے میں قابلِ استعمال ہو سکتی ہے، اگر قانونی شرائط پوری ہوں۔ دفعہ 512 کے تحت سابقہ بیان کی رسمی transposition میں معمولی یا تکنیکی خامی محض اسی وجہ سے شہادت کو ناقابلِ قبول نہیں بناتی، اگر بنیادی قانونی شرائط پوری ہوں۔
As a general rule of evidence, only such statements are admissible as evidence which are made on oath or affirmation during judicial proceedings, before a court or a person authorised by law to record evidence, and in the presence of the adverse party, who is afforded a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witness Under the provisions of section 353 Cr.P.C, therefore, it is mandatory that evidence should be recorded in the presence of the accused or, where his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader. The underlying rationale is to ensure a full and fair opportunity of defence, and to eliminate subsequent pleas of prejudice founded upon absence from the proceedings.
However, the law itself carves out limited exceptions to this general requirement. So far as the present case is concerned, three such exceptions are material.
First, Article 46 of the Order 1984 provides for statements as to the cause of a person’s death, commonly known as dying declarations.
Secondly, Article 47 of the Order 1984 contemplates the use, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, of evidence given by a witness in a previous judicial proceeding between the same parties, when that witness is dead, cannot be found, has become incapable of giving evidence or cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which would be unreasonable, provided that in the earlier proceeding the party against whom such evidence is now proposed to be used had the right and opportunity to cross examine that witness.
Thirdly, section 512 Cr.P.C. provides a special mechanism to record and preserve evidence where an accused person has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him.
A plain reading of section 512 of Cr.P.C shows that when an accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the court competent to try the case may, in his absence, examine the prosecution witnesses and record their depositions. Upon the arrest of such person, any such deposition may be given in evidence against him at the trial for the offence with which he is charged, provided that the deponent is dead, incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be procured without unreasonable delay, expense or inconvenience
There can be no cavil of proposition regarding the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that, ordinarily, conviction cannot be founded upon evidence recorded in the absence of the accused or his pleader, and that non compliance with the requirement of presence may vitiate the conviction. The position, however, is materially different where the accused has himself chosen to abscond and thus to stay away from the process of law. A person who deliberately evades the jurisdiction of the court cannot be permitted to derive any advantage from his own wrongful conduct. The Latin maxim “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” embodies this principle, namely that no person is allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. As far as the question that the accused Riffat Hussain was not given an opportunity to crossexamine the complainant Abdur Rahman is concerned, it is observed that the accused Riffat Hussain was an absconder and he impliedly waived his right to cross-examine the complainant at that previous trial.
When Article 47 of the Order 1984 is read in conjunction with section 512 Cr.P.C, the following position emerges. Evidence previously recorded in a judicial proceeding relating to the same occurrence may be used in a later proceeding if the witness is dead, cannot be found, has become incapable of giving evidence, or cannot be procured without unreasonable delay or expense, provided that the party against whom such evidence is now relied upon had, in the earlier proceeding, the right and opportunity to cross examine. Further, where the accused had absconded and thereby lost certain rights and protections which flow from his presence at trial, he cannot subsequently insist, as a matter of right, upon strict compliance with procedural formalities such as the formal transposition through which the earlier statement is made available to the court under section 512 Cr.P.C.
Article 131 of the Order 1984 vests in the trial judge the authority to decide questions regarding the admissibility of evidence. Where the substance of the statutory conditions is satisfied, the court is competent to read the earlier testimony as evidence and to give it due weight, whilst ignoring minor or technical irregularities concerning formal transposition under section 512 Cr.P.C.
Crl.P.L.A.1431/2020
Riffat Hussain v. Zahida Bibi and another
![2025 P Cr. L J 447[Lahore]جب متعلقہ تھانے کے انچارچ افسر (SHO) کو دفعہ 154 کے تحت FIR درج کرنے کی ہدایت حاصل کرنے کے لیے...](https://img4.lawfirms1.com/846/909/122212414778469096.jpg)
