No One Can Be Punished for Another Crime A Constitutional and Jurisdictional Analysis
A Fundamental Principle of Justice — Rooted in Faith, Law and Reason
Imagine being prosecuted for a crime you never committed not because of anything you did, but simply because your father, son, or brother committed it. There is no evidence against you. You committed no wrongful act. Yet you find yourself standing in the dock, answerable for someone else’s wrongdoing. That is not justice. Every credible legal system in the world including Pakistani legal system firmly rejects such a notion.
The principle is simple, ancient, and universal. Every individual is answerable only for his or her own conduct. No more, no less. This article explores how this foundational principle is enshrined in our Constitution, reinforced by the teachings of Islam, reflected in classical legal maxims, and consistently upheld by the Superior Courts of Pakistan.
Article 3 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 mandates the elimination of all forms of exploitation and enshrines the principle that every citizen is entitled to the fruits of his own labour and equally, bears responsibility only for his own conduct. Courts in Pakistan have consistently read Article 3 as a constitutional shield against vicarious criminal liability protecting citizens from being prosecuted, punished or persecuted for acts in which they had no personal involvement. The Lahore High Court, Lahore in a case reported at PLJ 2022 Lahore 211 has held that Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 protects individual citizens from exploitation inasmuch as all citizens are only liable for what they have done themselves and they are not liable for acts of others. Almost all legal systems in the world recognize that criminal liability can only be imposed on an individual for the acts and omissions for which such individual is personally responsible.
A Timeless Legal Principle
Long before modern legal systems formally articulated the principle of individual criminal responsibility, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) proclaimed it during the Farewell Pilgrimage in his Last Sermon (Khutbah al-Hajjat al-Wida’):
“Henceforth the offender himself will be responsible for the offence; no son will be charged for the father’s crime and no father will be punished for the crime committed by the son.”
These words, spoken more than fourteen centuries ago carry the weight of divine guidance and legal wisdom, embody both profound moral guidance and followed by a case reported at 2022 PCrLJ 408. The superior courts of Pakistan have repeatedly cited this declaration as a Islamic jurisprudential source affirming the personal nature of criminal liability [references 2000 YLR 85 – 2012 PCrLJ 1477 – 1996 MLD 165]. The principle proclaimed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in the seventh century continues to form one of the fundamental pillars of criminal justice systems across the world.
III. The Latin Maxim — Culpa Tenet Suos Auctores
The Latin maxim culpa tenet suos auctores which means that “a fault binds its own authors” expresses the same principle in the language of jurisprudence. Fault attaches only to the person who committed it. It neither travels nor transfers by reason of blood, association, or proximity.
For centuries, this maxim has remained a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. Read alongside the twin doctrines of actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind), it reinforces a fundamental rule of criminal law: liability is personal. A person may only be held criminally responsible where both the prohibited act and the requisite guilty intent are attributable to that individual.
The superior courts of Pakistan have consistently affirmed that criminal liability is personal and cannot be transferred by reason of family relationship or association.
The Lahore High Court has consistently held that no person can be held criminally liable for the acts of another. In one case, the Court ruled that a father has no locus standi to challenge criminal proceedings instituted against his adult son, recognizing that every accused is individually accountable for his own conduct. Similarly, in 2022 PCrLJ 408, the Honourable Lahore High Court held that the substitution of one person in the dock for another is “alien to criminal jurisprudence,” reiterating that a son cannot be prosecuted for an offence committed by his father, nor can a father be prosecuted for an offence committed by his son.
The Honourable Lahore High Court adopted the same principle in a cheque dishonour case, where the complainant sought to prosecute the sons of a deceased account-holder on the ground that they had inherited their father’s business. Rejecting the contention in a case cited as PLD 2022 Lahore 211 the Court held that although property and assets may devolve upon the legal heirs of a deceased person, criminal liability does not. The Court reaffirmed that no person can be prosecuted for a transaction to which he was neither a party nor a participant, as criminal responsibility is personal and cannot be imposed merely by virtue of succession.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has likewise recognised individual criminal responsibility as a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence shared by legal systems across the world. In 2026 SCMR 217, the Court held that neither a parent nor a child can incur criminal liability for the acts of the other unless there is independent evidence establishing his or her own participation in the offence, such as through conspiracy, aiding, or abetment. Rejecting the notion of collective or familial guilt, the Court reaffirmed that criminal liability rests upon the well-established principles of actus reus and mens rea, requiring proof of both a guilty act and a guilty mind on the part of the accused.
The Balochistan High Court applied the same principle in a narcotics case involving a father and son travelling together in a truck carrying a substantial quantity of contraband. While the son, who was driving the vehicle, was convicted, the father was acquitted. Dismissing the State’s appeal, the Court in a case reported at 2012 PCrLJ 1477 held that mere presence at the scene, absent proof of conspiracy or abetment, cannot establish criminal liability. In doing so, it expressly relied upon the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) Farewell Sermon and reaffirmed that every individual is answerable only for his own acts.
Drawing a distinction between civil and criminal law, the Sindh High Court observed in a case reported as 2002 CLC 96 that although civil law recognizes limited forms of vicarious liability, criminal law does not. As the Court succinctly stated, “a person is liable for his own acts of omission and commission and nobody can be penalized for the acts of another.”
The Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as 2026 SCMR 217 has endorsed the same principle in unequivocal terms: no one can be penalized for the wrongs of another. Far from being a mere procedural rule, individual criminal responsibility is a foundational principle of justice and an indispensable safeguard against arbitrary prosecution.
Khalid Zafar
