Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2231 2014 SLD 2231 2014 PCRLJ 1504
Peshawar High Court
Criminal Revision Nos. 9-P and 10-P of 2014, decided on 23rd January, 2014
IKRAMULLAH KHAN, J
Zar Muhammad Afridi for Petitioner. Nemo for the State

ZAWAR ALI

VS

The STATE and 3 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 265-C, 265-F & 324---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.540---Attempt to Qatl-e-amd---Additional evidence---Principle---Filling in lacuna---Failure to provide copies of evidence to accused---Complainant, after close of prosecution evidence and recording of statements of accused persons filed application to summon doctor and an official who arrested accused---Trial Court dismissed the application---Validity---Trial Court had unfettered power in matter of summoning a witness, though not cited as a witness in calendar of witnesses, in case, Trial Court arrived thereof to the conclusion in the light of peculiar circumstances of a case that examination of such person as a witness was essential for just and fair dispensation of justice---Such power could not be exercised when examination of such a proposed witness introduced later on by any party to the case for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating ends of justice---Powers conferred upon Trial Court under S.540, Cr.P.C. could be used to find out the truth but could not be exercised for filling gaps and lacuna left by either party---When no copy of statement of witnesses and documents to be exhibited by such witnesses were provided to accused at commencement of trial and before framing of charge, at such belated stage complainant could not be permitted to examine and place on record any document in shape of second medical report and card of arrest, though proposed witnesses, whose names and description were neither mentioned in calendar of witnesses nor Trial Court was apprised of them when prosecution was called out to lead its evidence---To allow such applications at such belated stage would serve no useful purpose but to increase agonies of accused party albeit they had already suffered since year, 2012---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court--- Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Afzal v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 72 and Muhammad Khan v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1778 rel. (b) Criminal trial--- ----Court, duty of---Scope---Duty of Court is to administer justice in just and fair manner and nevertheless, assume status of a…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492