LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has held that it was mandatory to record an accused’s statement in family cases, dismissing a petition filed by a man seeking acquittal after a trial court failed to follow proper procedure during prosecution in his second marriage case.

In a recently passed judgement, Justice Raheel Kamran ruled that while failing to examine an accused was a serious omission, it did not automatically entitle the defendant to an outright acquittal.

The case originated when Noor Ahmad was convicted by a family court for contracting a second marriage without following the requirements of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.

During his appeal, an additional district and sessions judge discovered that the trial court had never recorded Ahmad’s statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Procedural lapse not grounds for outright acquittal; ruling is rooted in legal principle of right to be heard, judge observes

The appellate court set aside the conviction and ordered that the case be sent back to the family court to record the statement and proceed legally.

Ahmad challenged this before the LHC, arguing that the procedural blunder should have resulted in his immediate acquittal.

Justice Kamran noted that Section 342 was not a mere technicality but a “meaningful dialogue” between the court and the accused.

The judge explained that the trial court had discretionary powers to ask the accused questions at any stage to clarify the evidence.

However, he added that after the prosecution finished its evidence, the trial court must confront the accused with incriminating material to allow them to explain it.

The judge observed that the underlying rationale was anchored in the principle of “audi alteram partem” — no person should be condemned unheard.

Justice Kamran rejected the petitioner’s rigid argument that procedural errors must lead to acquittal.

He observed that the law expressly allowed appellate courts to order a retrial or restore proceedings to the stage where the error occurred.

The judge dismissed the petition and upheld the appellate court’s decision to remand the case to the trial court.

The ruling ensures Noor Ahmad is given his legal right to explain the evidence against him, while also preserving the complainant’s right to a fair adjudication on the merits of the case.

Published in Dawn, March 24th, 2026