Summary: (a) Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) ----S. 353---Recording of evidence---Presence of accused---Fair opportunity of defence---General rule---Held, ordinarily all evidence in trial is to be recorded in presence of accused or his pleader; underlying purpose is to ensure fair opportunity of cross-examination and to prevent prejudice arising from absence. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 47---Previous testimony---Admissibility in subsequent proceedings---Conditions---Complainant Abdul Rehman deposed in earlier trial arising out of same incident---He was cross-examined by defence in that trial---Accused Riffat Hussain was absconding and did not face trial at that stage---Later, upon arrest and trial of absconding accused, complainant had died---Held, where witness is dead and testimony was recorded in earlier judicial proceeding relating to same occurrence, and defence had right and opportunity of cross-examination in earlier proceeding, such deposition is admissible and can be read in evidence in subsequent trial---Earlier deposition satisfied statutory conditions of Art.47 and could be relied upon along with later ocular testimony. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898) ----S. 512---Recording of evidence in absence of absconding accused---Use of such deposition after arrest---Principle---Held, law provides mechanism to preserve prosecution evidence where accused has absconded and there is no immediate prospect of arrest---Upon arrest, such deposition may be used if deponent is dead/incapable/unavailable without unreasonable delay or expense---Absconding accused cannot claim advantage from own wrongful conduct; implied waiver of right to contemporaneous cross-examination during period of abscondence recognised. (d) Criminal jurisprudence ----Abscondence---Effect on procedural protections---Maxim “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria”---Held, accused who deliberately evades process of law cannot later insist on strict procedural advantage founded on his own abscondence; technical objections regarding non-availability of direct cross-examination were not sustainable where statutory conditions for use of prior testimony were met. (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Art. 131---Admissibility---Court’s authority---Held, trial judge is empowered to determine admissibility; where substantive statutory requirements are fulfilled, minor technical irregularities regarding formal transposition under S.512 Cr.P.C. do not defeat admissibility or probative evaluation of earlier testimony. (f) Criminal trial ----Prompt FIR---Effect---FIR lodged within about one and a half hours---Held, promptness excluded deliberation and consultation and lent assurance to prosecution version and nomination of accused. (g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Murder---Ocular and medical corroboration---Accused specifically nominated---Consistent role attribution---Ocular account comprised of complainant’s earlier deposition and eyewitness Muhammad Ishaq’s later testimony---Both consistent with FIR and confidence inspiring---Held, ocular account was natural, straightforward and free from material contradictions or inherent improbabilities---Medical evidence supported nature, number and location of injuries and cause of death---Recovery of weapon and prolonged abscondence provided further corroboration when read with other evidence---Prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt; conviction maintained. (h) Sentence ----Life imprisonment on two counts---Concurrency---High Court converted death sentence into life imprisonment on two counts---Supreme Court declined interference with conversion---Held, no ground made out to enhance sentence; discretion exercised by High Court neither arbitrary nor perverse---However, life sentences on two counts directed to run concurrently. Cited Cases: • Miran v. The State 2013 P Cr. L J 244 • Arbab Tasleem v. The State PLD 2010 SC 642 • Ahmad Ali v. Ebrar Khan etc. Cr.R No. 07-P/2021 • The State v. Ali Zaman 1981 PCr.LJ 194 • Pakistan International Freight Forwarders Association v. Province of Sindh 2017 PTD 1 Disposition: Crl.P.L.A.1431/2020 was dismissed; conviction and life imprisonment awarded to petitioner Riffat Hussain were maintained; life sentences on two counts were ordered to run concurrently. Crl.P.L.A.1487/2020 seeking enhancement was dismissed and leave was refused; no interference warranted with High Court’s conversion of death sentence into life imprisonment. (Short order dated 25.11.2025; reasons recorded in judgment).

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 353--- Recording of prosecution evidence—Presence of counsel—Scope—Petitioner challenged the order whereby examination-in-chief of seven prosecution witnesses was recorded in absence of defence counsel—Petitioner contended that counsel was engaged before the Supreme Court and had submitted a written request—Held, S. 353 Cr.P.C. mandates that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused or his pleader where personal attendance is dispensed with—In the present case, petitioner and co-accused were present during examination-in-chief—Counsel submitted power of attorney and had been appearing throughout trial—No leading questions were alleged, and no specific prejudice was demonstrated—Cross-examination of said witnesses was later conducted by the defence—Held, no illegality or irregularity occurred; petition dismissed. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973): ----Art. 10(1)--- Right to counsel—Misapplication of constitutional right—Petitioner argued violation of Art. 10(1) of the Constitution due to absence of counsel during examination-in-chief—Held, right to fair trial and legal representation was not infringed where accused was present, counsel had consistently represented petitioner, and cross-examination was subsequently conducted—Petitioner failed to establish any denial of fair trial or resulting prejudice—Petition dismissed accordingly. (c) Administration of justice: ----Fair trial--- Role of trial court—Recording of evidence not to be treated as ritual—Trial court under duty to ensure presence of accused or their counsel—Where absence of counsel was explained post-facto and no actual harm or unfairness was shown to have resulted, interference by revisional court not warranted—Court directed trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously within one month—Petition dismissed without costs.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---- Ss. 205, 353 & 540-A: --- Dispensation of personal attendance of accused – Legal requirements --- Appellant sought exemption from personal appearance before the trial court, which was rejected by both the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction and the Shariat Court – Contention that personal appearance of the accused could be dispensed with even in his absence – Held, under S. 205, Cr.P.C., a Magistrate may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused when issuing a summons, but he retains the discretion to require personal appearance at any stage – S. 353, Cr.P.C. requires evidence to be recorded in the presence of the accused unless such attendance is legally exempted – S. 540-A, Cr.P.C. allows exemption from personal attendance during trial when multiple accused are before the court and the judge is satisfied that one or more accused cannot remain present, provided they are represented by a pleader – No legal justification was shown by the appellant for exemption under these provisions – Court cannot pass an order in a vacuum and must assess the nature of allegations and circumstances – Orders of the lower courts were legally sustainable. (b) Criminal Procedure – Judicial discretion in granting exemption from appearance: --- Exemption from appearance not an absolute right – Judicial application of mind required --- Appellant contended that his absence should not have barred the court from considering the application for exemption from personal attendance – Held, while Cr.P.C. provisions empower courts to dispense with personal attendance in suitable cases, this discretion must be exercised judiciously – The trial court must evaluate whether the accused's presence is necessary for fair proceedings – In the present case, no valid legal justification was provided in the exemption application, and no compelling reason was advanced during arguments to justify relief – Application rightly rejected. ----Disposition: Appeal dismissed – Orders of the lower courts upheld. ----Statutory Provisions Discussed: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 205, 353, 540-A