Pakistan SC Declares Falsus in Uno Principle Binding in All Criminal Courts.
سچ یا کچھ نہیں: سپریم کورٹ کا تاریخی فیصلہ – جھوٹی گواہی ناقابلِ قبول
تعارف / Introduction
PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 265 میں سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے کریمنل جسٹس سسٹم میں ایک تاریخی فیصلہ سناتے ہوئے اصول “Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus” کو بحال کیا، جس کا مطلب ہے:
"ایک جھوٹا، ہر بات میں جھوٹا"۔
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ جو گواہ کسی بھی اہم نقطے پر جھوٹ بولتا ہے، اس کی ساری گواہی ناقابلِ اعتبار ہوگی اور اس کے خلاف لازمی طور پر perjury (جھوٹی گواہی) کا مقدمہ چلایا جائے گا۔
پس منظر / Background
1951 میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس محمد منیر نے اس اصول کو پاکستان کے عدالتی نظام میں غیر مؤثر قرار دیا تھا۔ سپریم کورٹ نے 2019 میں اس رائے کو نہ صرف غلط قرار دیا بلکہ کہا کہ یہ اصول نہ صرف انصاف کے تقاضوں بلکہ اسلامی تعلیمات اور آئین پاکستان کے مطابق بھی لازمی ہے۔
سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ:
"ایک ایسا عدالتی نظام جو جھوٹ کو برداشت کرے، وہ تباہی کے دہانے پر ہوتا ہے۔"
یہ اصول اب تمام کریمنل عدالتوں کے لیے لازمی اور نافذ العمل ہوگا۔
فیصلے کے اہم نکات / Key Points
جھوٹی گواہی برداشت نہیں ہوگی: گواہی میں جھوٹ دینا کسی بھی عدالت میں ناقابلِ قبول ہوگا۔
پوری گواہی کی ردّی: اگر گواہ کسی اہم نقطے پر جھوٹ بولتا ہے تو اس کی ساری گواہی رد کر دی جائے گی۔
پرجرى کا مقدمہ: جھوٹے گواہ کے خلاف perjury (جھوٹی گواہی) کا مقدمہ لازمی طور پر چلایا جائے گا۔
عدالتوں پر لازمی اثر: آئندہ تمام عدالتیں اس اصول کو لازمی طور پر اپنائیں گی۔
اسلامی تعلیمات کے مطابق: جھوٹی گواہی دینا کبیرہ گناہ ہے اور انصاف کے اصولوں کے خلاف ہے۔
آئینی حوالہ / Constitutional Reference
آرٹیکل 227، آئین پاکستان 1973:
"کوئی قانون اسلامی احکام کے خلاف نہیں بنایا جا سکتا۔"
آرٹیکل 189، آئین پاکستان 1973:
"سپریم کورٹ کے فیصلے، جو قانون کے کسی سوال پر ہوں، تمام عدالتوں کے لیے لازم و نافذ ہیں۔"
سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ کوئی عدالت جھوٹ بولنے والے گواہ کو قانونی تحفظ فراہم نہیں کر سکتی۔
فیصلہ اور اثرات / Judgment and Impact
سپریم کورٹ نے کہا کہ:
"ایک عدالتی نظام جو جان بوجھ کر جھوٹ کو برداشت کرے، ناکام ہونے کے لیے مقدر ہے۔ سچائی انصاف کی بنیاد ہے اور انصاف ایک منظم اور مہذب معاشرے کا ستون۔"
عدالت نے حکم دیا کہ ہر ہائی کورٹ کے رجسٹرار کو یہ آرڈر تمام ججز اور مجسٹریٹس تک پہنچانا ضروری ہے تاکہ وہ تمام کریمنل کیسز میں اس اصول کو مکمل طور پر نافذ کریں۔
اختتام / Conclusion
یہ فیصلہ پاکستان کے کریمنل عدالتی نظام کے لیے سنگ میل کی حیثیت رکھتا ہے۔ اب جھوٹی گواہی نہ صرف ناقابل قبول ہوگی بلکہ اس کے مرتکب کے خلاف قانونی کارروائی لازمی ہوگی۔ یہ اصول سچائی اور انصاف کے تقاضوں کو یقینی بنانے کے لیے تمام عدالتوں کے لیے لازمی قرار دیا گیا ہے۔
PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 265 میں سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے کریمنل جسٹس سسٹم میں ایک اہم اصول کو بحال کرتے ہوئے فیصلہ دیا کہ:
> "جو گواہ ایک معاملے میCourts. بولتا ہے، اُس کی ساری گواہی ناقابلِ اعتبار سمجھی جائے گی"۔
یہ اصول "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" کہلاتا ہے، جس کا مطلب ہے:
"ایک جھوٹا، ہر بات میں جھوٹا"۔
1951 میں لاہور ہائی کورٹ کے چیف جسٹس محمد منیر نے اس اصول کو پاکستان کے عدالتی نظام میں غیر مؤثر قرار دیا تھا۔ مگر سپریم کورٹ نے 2019 میں اسے نہ صرف غلط قرار دیا بلکہ اسے اسلامی تعلیمات، آئین پاکستان اور انصاف کے تقاضوں کے خلاف بھی قرار دیا۔
فیصلے کے اہم نکات:
1. گواہی میں جھوٹ برداشت نہیں ہوگا۔
2. اگر کوئی گواہ کسی اہم نکتہ پر جھوٹ بولتا ہے تو اس کی پوری گواہی رد کی جائے گی۔
3. جھوٹے گواہ کے خلاف پرجرى (جھوٹی گواہی) کا مقدمہ چلایا جائے گا۔
4. آئندہ تمام عدالتیں اس اصول کو لازمی طور پر اپنائیں گی۔
5. فیصلہ اسلامی اصولوں پر مبنی ہے کیونکہ جھوٹی گواہی دینا کبیرہ گناہ ہے۔
آئینی حوالہ:
آرٹیکل 227 کے مطابق:
> "کوئی قانون اسلامی احکام کے خلاف نہیں بنایا جا سکتا۔"
لہٰذا ایسا قانون یا اصول جو جھوٹے گواہوں کو تحفظ دے، وہ آئینی طور پر بھی قابلِ قبول نہیں۔
اختتامی کلمات:
عدالت نے یہ بھی کہا کہ:
> "ایک ایسا عدالتی نظام جو جھوٹ کو برداشت کرے، وہ تباہی کے دہانے پر ہوتا ہے۔"
Must read judgement
PLJ 2019 SC (Cr.C.) 265
[Original Jurisdiction]
Present: ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, CJ, MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL AND SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JJ.
NOTICE IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT ON 13.02.2019 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 238-L OF 2013 TO POLICE CONSTABLE KHIZAR HAYAT SON OF HADAIT ULLAH ON ACCOUNT OF HIS FALSE STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 200 of 2019 in Crl. A. No. 238-L of 2013,
decided on 4.3.2019.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus--
----Application in Criminal Justice System in Pakistan--The rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus--Latin phrase--Meaning of “false in one thing, false in everything”--Held: A witness who lied about any material fact must be disbelieved as to all facts--Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is a Latin phrase meaning “false in one thing, false in everything”--The rule held that a witness who lied about any material fact must be disbelieved as to all facts because of the reason that the “presumption that the witness will declare the truth ceases as soon as it manifestly appears that he is capable of perjury” and that “Faith in a witness’s testimony cannot be partial or fractional--The rule was first held not to apply to cases in Pakistan in case of Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Crown (PLD 1951 Lahore 66) and judgment was authored by Muhammad Munir, CJ.--This view stems from notion that once a witness is found to have lied about a material aspect of a case, it cannot then be safely assumed that said witness will declare truth about any other aspect of case--Maxim has not been accepted by superior Courts in Pakistan--Supreme Court of Pakistan has dealt with rule in different cases till date--Job of a judge was to discover truth--Earlier rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is inapplicable in this country practically encourages commission of perjury which is a serious offence in this country--A Court of law cannot permit something which law expressly forbids--With all due respect, we feel that such an approach, which involves extraneous and practical considerations, is arbitrary besides being subjective and same can have drastic consequences for rule of law and dispensation of justice in criminal matters--When a witness has been found false with regard to implication of one accused about whose participation he had deposed on oath credibility of such witness regarding involvement of other accused in same occurrence would be irretrievably shaken--A fore-discussed main rule shall suffer serious change if and when it is examined in light of Islamic Principles--The Holy Qur’an deal with matter--It can be seen that giving testimony its due importance and weight is an obligatory duty and those who stand firm in their testimonies are among people of righteousness and faith--According to corpus of traditions of Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), false testimony is one of greater sins--Offence of Qazf, which has been defined--It can be seen that Holy Qur’an puts a great emphasis upon need to meet requisite standard of evidence, so much so that for a person levelling allegation of Zina but not meeting given standard, it not only provides for a penal punishment, but also for withdrawal of such a person’s civic right to give evidence in all matters of his life--A Court of law cannot grant a licence to a witness to tell lies or to mix truth with falsehood and then take it upon itself to sift grain from chaff when law of land makes perjury or testifying falsely a culpable offence--A Court also has no jurisdiction to lay down a principle of law when even Parliament is expressly forbidden by Constitution from enacting such a principle as law--Inapplicability of this rule in Pakistan was introduced by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir in year 1951 at a time when Article 227 of Constitution was not in field but after introduction of said constitutional prohibition enunciation of law by his lordship in this field, like infamous doctrine of necessity introduced by his lordship in constitutional field, may not hold its ground now--A judicial system which permits deliberate falsehood is doomed to fail and a society which tolerates it is destined to self-destruct--Truth is foundation of justice and justice is core and bedrock of a civilized society and, thus, any compromise on truth amounts to a compromise on a society’s future as a just, fair and civilized society--Our judicial system has suffered a lot as a consequence of above mentioned permissible deviation from truth and it is about time that such a colossal wrong may be rectified in all earnestness--Therefore, in light of discussion made above, we declare that rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus shall henceforth be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases and same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all Courts in country in its letter and spirit--It is also directed that a witness found by a Court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect shall, without any latitude, invariably be proceeded against for committing perjury.
[Pp. 272, 277, 279, 282, 289, 290, 293, 298, 299, 301 & 302]
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, I, J, K, L, M, N, O & P
PLD 1970 SC 13; PLD 1973 SC 418; 1973 SCMR 162; 1977 SCMR 150; 1981 SCMR 1136; PLD 1985 SC 11; PLD 1973 SC 418; 1974 SCMR 289; 1977 SCMR 150; 1981 SCMR 1136; 1982 SCMR 1049; PLD 1982 SC 429; 1984 SCMR 190; 1993 SCMR 155; 1981 SCMR 1136; 1993 SCMR 2046; PLD 1996 SC 138; PLD 1951 Lah 66; PLD 1985 SC 11; 1997 SCMR 89; 1998 SCMR 1768; 1998 SCMR 1823; 1997 SCMR 89; 1999 SCMR 1418; PLD 2000 SC 1; PLD 1970 SC 13; PLD 1973 SC 418; 1974 SCMR 289; PLD 1982 SC 429; 1984 SCMR 190; 2000 SCMR 854; 2000 SCMR 1758; PLD 1962 SC 502; 1992 SCMR 1647; 1990 SCMR 803; PLD 2001 SC 101; PLD 1985 SC 11; 1974 SCMR 289; 1982 SCMR 1049; 1999 SCMR 1418; 2001 SCMR 1518; 2001 SCMR 177; 1973 SCMR 162; 2002 SCMR 1842; 2007 SCMR 1296; 2009 SCMR 916; 1969 SCMR 132, 1968 SCMR 719; PLD 2002 SC 52; 2010 SCMR 1090; 2014 SCMR 749; PLD 2015 SC 145; 2017 SCMR 1645; 2019 SCMR 79 ref.
20. Article 2 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 declares that “Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.” Clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution mandates as follows:
“All existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah, in this part referred to as the Injunctions of Islam, and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to such Injunctions.”
According to Article 189 of the Constitution “Any decision of the Supreme Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding on all other Courts in Pakistan”. Declaring by this Court that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is inapplicable in Pakistan is enunciation of a principle of law and has a binding effect. If inapplicability of that rule militates against the Injunctions of Islam and if such inapplicability cannot be enacted by the Parliament on account of its repugnance to the Injunctions of Islam then this Court may not be in a position to introduce such inapplicability through an enunciation of a principle of law or to continue with the same any more. A Court of law cannot grant a licence to a witness to tell lies or to mix truth with falsehood and then take it upon itself to sift grain from chaff when the law of the land makes perjury or testifying falsely a culpable offence. A Court also has no jurisdiction to lay down a principle of law when even the Parliament is expressly forbidden by the Constitution from enacting such a principle as law. The inapplicability of this rule in Pakistan was introduced by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir in the year 1951 at a time when Article 227 of the Constitution was not in the field but after introduction of the said constitutional prohibition the enunciation of law by his lordship in this field, like the infamous doctrine of necessity introduced by his lordship in the constitutional field, may not hold its ground now, as already predicted and foreseen by this Court in the case of Ghulam Sikandar (supra) in the following prophetic words:
“Expressed in a more direct manner a similar rule in the administration of criminal justice which is hall-mark of Islamic Jurisprudence, that when a witness has been found false with regard to the implication of one accused about whose participation he had deposed on oath the credibility of such witness regarding involvement of the other accused in the same occurrence would be irretrievably shaken. -------The afore-discussed main rule shall suffer serious change if and when it is examined in the light of the Islamic Principles.”
21. We may observe in the end that a judicial system which permits deliberate falsehood is doomed to fail and a society which tolerates it is destined to self-destruct. Truth is the foundation of justice and justice is the core and bedrock of a civilized society and, thus, any compromise on truth amounts to a compromise on a society’s future as a just, fair and civilized society. Our judicial system has suffered a lot as a consequence of the above mentioned permissible deviation from the truth and it is about time that such a colossal wrong may be rectified in all earnestness. Therefore, in light of the discussion made above, we declare that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus shall henceforth be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases and the same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all the Courts in the country in its letter and spirit. It is also directed that a witness found by a Court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect shall, without any latitude, invariably be proceeded against for committing perjury.
22. The office of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrars of all the High Courts in the country with a direction to send a copy of the same to every Judge and Magistrate within the jurisdiction of each High Court handling criminal cases at all levels for their information and guidance.