| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 1061 2018 SLD 1061 2018 PCRLJ 553 |
Peshawar High Court
Cr.Rev. No. 27-B of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 09-06-2017.
ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
M. Yaqoob Khan Marwat for Petitioner. Hujjat Ullah Khan for
Respondents. Shahid Hameed Qureshi, Additional A.G. for the State.
Cr.Rev. No. 27-B of 2017, decision & hearing Dated: 09-06-2017.
ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE
M. Yaqoob Khan Marwat for Petitioner. Hujjat Ullah Khan for
Respondents. Shahid Hameed Qureshi, Additional A.G. for the State.
KALIMULLAH
VS
THE STATE AND ANOTHER
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 172(2)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 157---Reliance on police diary and right of adverse party to refresh memory---Scope---Prosecution produced Investigating Officer during trial of the case---During the cross-examination, questions regarding mentioning of facts of receiving reference chit in the case diary and writing all the case diaries on the spot or in police station were put to said witness---Complainant objected the said questions, which objection was sustained by the Trial Court---Validity---Investigating Officer of the case was not a formal witness, as he was a person who had collected the evidence and had placed the same before the court---Investigating Officer of the case could refresh his memory before recording his statement and then it was the inalienable right of the accused to cross-examine him to contradict or corroborate him as the case might be---In the present case, nothing was on record to show that Investigating Officer was examined without consultation of police file---Once the Investigating Officer consulted police file then he was amenable to cross-examination---Once a witness had refreshed his memory, defence would be entitled to see the particular portion of case diaries and to ask questions with regard to the investigation of the case to arrive at a just and proper decision of the case; otherwise court could look into the diaries and the deposition of witness recorded at the trial and would form its own opinion without referring the daily diary in its order or as the case may be---Revision petition was disposed of with the order by the High Court that Investigating Officer be re-summoned as witness and defence be allowed to cross-examine him with regard to the investigation of the case. Abdul Sattar v. The State through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. 2008 SCMR 684 and Shad Muhammad Khan v. The State and another 2013 YLR 71 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, JUSTICE:---.--- Kaleemullah, the petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, being dissatisfied from order dated 22.04.2017 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Lakki Marwat, with the…
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