Law: Pakistan Penal Code (PPC),1860

Section: 302, 427, 324, 34

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 2(ii), 7

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 342,512

REMARKS

A plain reading of the S. 512 Cr.PC indicates that when an accused has absconded, and there is no immediate prospect of arrest, the Court may examine prosecution witnesses and record their depositions if the offence is punishable by death or life imprisonment. If the accused is later arrested, and any such witnesses are unavailable due to death, incapacity, or difficulty in procuring their attendance, the statements recorded under Section 512 Cr.P.C. may be admitted as evidence.
In the present case, however, Section 512 Cr.P.C. does not apply, as the petitioner was present when the evidence was recorded and his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. was taken before he absconded. The purpose of Section 512 Cr.P.C. is to preserve witness testimony for cases where the witness may not be available when the accused is brought to trial.
There is no clear legal provision addressing whether a trial should be restarted (denovo) if an accused absconds after the conclusion of proceedings but before judgment is delivered. However, since the entire evidence was recorded in the petitioner’s presence, and only the final judgment remained pending, this Court held that granting the accused a second opportunity to cross-examine witnesses through a de novo trial would not serve the interests of justice. Instead, any new developments after his re-arrest and the filing of a supplementary challan may be addressed through a supplementary statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C.

Summary:Murder Absconding
The case involves Faisal Zaman and others charged with murder, destruction of property, and other offenses under PPC and Anti-Terrorism Act. Faisal Zaman initially appeared for trial but fled during Assembly proceedings, resulting in an FIR for absconding. The co-accused were acquitted on appeal. The key issue was whether the trial could continue based on evidence recorded in Faisal's absence under Section 512 Cr.P.C or if a new trial was needed after his re-arrest. The court held that since the evidence and Faisal’s statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C were recorded in his presence before fleeing, a retrial was unnecessary. The revision was allowed.