بیان ملزم زیر دفعہ 342CrPc کی قانونی حیثیت کیا ہے اور 340Crpcبیان برحلف کی کیا حیثیت ہے ۔ ان دونوں میں کون سے بیان کی کیا قانونی حیثیت ہے ۔
PLJ 2022 Crc 397 Lahore
👇
عدالت میں جب بھی ملزم کا بیان 342 Crpcکے تحت ریکارڈ کیا جائے گا۔۔۔تو اسکے بیان کو مکمل طور پر کنسیڈر کیا جاے گا۔۔۔یعنی اسکے inculpatory part of the statement اور exculpatory part of statement دونوں کو as a whole لیا جاےگا، ایسا بلکل قانون میں ممکن نہیں کہ ملزم کے بیان کا وہ حصہ جو اسکے خلاف جاتا ہے وہ کنسیڈر ہوگا جو اسکے حق میں ہوگا وہ نہیں۔۔۔
It is by now well settled that statement of an accused is to be accepted or rejected in toto and it is legally not permissible to accept inculpatory part of the statement of an accused and reject exculpatory part of the same statement, when otherwise the prosecution evidence is not worthy of reliance.
Criminal Appeal No.115212 of 2017
(Muhammad Ashraf vs. The State & another) &
Murder Reference No.672 of 2017
(The State vs. Muhammad Ashraf)ملزم کا بیان زیر دفعہ 342 ض ف ایک بار قلمبن*
ھونے کے بعد بھی اگر کوئی سوال ملزم کو put نہ کیا گیا ھو تو عدالت ملزم کو اضافی سوال put کر سکتی ھے
*PLJ 2023 CrC 195*
Additional questions to accused after his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C.
S.342 CrPC has two parts; first part authorizes the Court to ask questions at any stage of inquiry or trial without warning the accused and second part relates to questioning the accused generally after close of prosecution evidence. Though in stricto senso no express provision is available for recording of statement more than once in second part of the section 342 Cr.P.C., yet first part authorizes to ask as many questions at any time as the court desires and wish of the court is obviously regulated not by whims but by the principle that any piece of evidence appearing against accused needs his reply or clarification before it is used against him, and it is the base line principle of natural justice borrowed from the maxim “Audi Alterum Partem”, no one should be condemned unheard.
It is trite that evidence not put to the accused in his statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C cannot be used against him for recording any observation making part of main platform which is set to erect a guilt-edifice against him. Appellate courts usually remand the case on the deficiency of questions put to accused in his statement u/s 342 Cr. P.C. on the principle that trial court before relying upon any evidence should have sought explanation of accused about it, which indirectly a message that if any evidence is skipped or lost sight of putting to the accused but is essential to be relied upon, the trial court before proceeding further must put some additional questions in this respect which is in line with first part of section 342 Cr.P.C. authorizing the court to ask question at any stage of the proceedings without warning him.
The allegation of filling lacune is usually attributed to the litigating parties on whose applications court sometimes misread the situation but it cannot be levelled against the court which always looks for doing complete justice and in this respect is authorized to use its inquisitorial pocket in an adversarial system like in our system enumerated in section 94, 265-F, 540, 539-B of Cr.P.C. and Article 158 & 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. So is the case of power under first part of section 342 Cr.P.C.
Trial court is authorized to dilate upon all pieces of evidence for a reply of accused to be considered later in order to appreciate the evidence of prosecution, yet recording of statement u/s 342 Cr.P.C. afresh in this case is not desirable rather court can put additional questions encompassing the evidence appearing against him and is intended to be used by the court for recording any observation relating to guilt or otherwise of the accused and this arrangement is in consonance with the spirit of first part of section 342 Cr.P.C..
