Evidence for prosecution

2023 PLD 124 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 241-A & 244Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 18Evidence for prosecutionSupply of statements and documents to accusedProduction of documentsScope

Accused, in a trial under S. 489-F, P.P.C., objected to the complainant's exhibition of certain original documents during his evidence, copies whereof had been provided to the police during the course of investigation

Magistrate sustained the objection and discarded the documents which formed part of the evidence

Complainant filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court, which was allowed

Held, that the police authorities ought to have taken the original bank receipts or at least complainant ought to have provided them during the course of investigation, however, even if the same was not done and subsequently during the course of trial the original documents were produced in evidence, there was no impediment in law which barred the prosecution from doing so

By virtue of Art. 18 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, any evidence which proved the fact and issue was to be allowed by the Court

Mere admissibility of document in evidence did not necessarily prove it

Method to prove a document was altogether distinct from adducing it in evidence

Trial Court could not have discarded the documents

Revisional Court had rightly explained the position of law and no exception could be taken thereto

Writ petition was dismissed.

2020 MLD 1917 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 265-F & 540Evidence for prosecutionPower to summon material witness or examine persons presentScope

Petitioner, a stranger to the proceedings, filed application under Ss. 265-F & 540, Cr.P.C. for permission to record his statement as prosecution witness or court witness

Validity

Subsection (2) of S.265-F, Cr.P.C. transpired that the court shall ascertain from the public prosecutor the name of any person acquainted with the facts of the case

Petitioner was neither complainant nor he had any nexus with the case; had not provided any document or record of his statement before the investigating officer and had kept silent for five years

Section 265-F, Cr.P.C. provided that the complainant or accused could approach the court for summoning/calling the person who was acquainted with the facts of the case

Court though had ample power to record statement of any person irrespective of whether his statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. was recorded or not during investigation, but that did not mean that a person could approach the court after a delay of several years for permission to record his statement as prosecution or court witness

Petitioner had not explained as to why he kept mum and who prevented him to co-operate with the investigating officer during investigation

Petitioner had a claim against the accused for which he had to approach the court of civil jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2020 PLD 32 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 265-F & 540Evidence for prosecutionPower of court to summon material witnessScope

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, provides only two provisions which deal with examination and production of witnesses i.e. S.265-F and S.540

Section 265-F, Cr.P.C. is absolute prerogative of the parties i.e. prosecution and defence and their discretion to examine, withhold or give-up any witness or document

Such discretion cannot be questioned, but the court can competently consider the consequences thereof

Section 540, Cr.P.C. is an exception

Normally, the exception to call a witness as a court-witness would be available in certain situations where witness could not be otherwise brought before the court else the prerogative, provided by S.265-F, Cr.P.C., shall stand prejudiced.

2016 PCrLJ 599 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 244(2), 265-F, 161 & 200Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 452, 148 & 149Rioting armed with deadly weapon, common object, house trespass for preparation of hurt, assault and wrongful restraintPrivate complaintApplication for summoning of witnesses, acceptance ofPrinciplesEvidence for prosecutionExamination of witnesses by policeCursory or supplementary statements, recording ofPrinciples as to requirement

Complainant, during trial on private complaint, filed application for summoning of witnesses, which was allowed by Trial Court

Revisional court, however, set aside order of Trial Court for absence of cursory statements of proposed witnesses

Under Ss. 244(2) & 265-F of Cr.P.C., court, having ascertained, either from Public Prosecutor or from complainant, names of any person who was likely to be acquainted with facts of case and was able to give evidence for prosecution, would summon such person to give evidence before it

Vast powers had been given to trial court with regard to summoning of any person as witness

Recording of cursory statement or statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. was not requirement of law

Names of witnesses, which were sought to be summoned, had been duly incorporated in calendar of witnesses, which was attached with private complaint

Ground that accused would not have opportunity to confront the witnesses with their earlier statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. or their cursory statements, had not backing of law

When witnesses would appear in witness box, rival party would have ample opportunity to cross-examine them to shatter their testimony

High Court, setting aside order of revisional court, restored that of Trial Court

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2015 PLD 426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 265-F(7)Evidence for prosecutionNon-examination of some eye-witnessesQuantity or quality of witnesses

Prerogative of prosecution to produce evidence as could be necessary to prove the charge; and could give-up the witnesses after sufficient evidence was brought on record; because as a rule of criminal jurisprudence, prosecution evidence was not tested on the basis of the quantity, but quality of evidence was to be insisted

Either party could produce evidence of as many witnesses as were found necessary by it to prove a certain charge or fact

Exercise of such prerogative, should not always be taken as adverse, particularly where the rival party could, well within its substantial right, bring any such witness as their witness

Accused could competently ask for examination of any witness or production of any document.