Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 1777 2021 SLD 1777 2021 PCRLJ 915
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 9 and 18 of 2019, decided on 21st October, 2020, Date of hearing: 20th October, 2020.
MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE, AMJAD ALI SAHITO, JUSTICE
Ali Hyder Saleem, Deputy Prosecutor General for Applicant (in Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 2019) and for
Respondent (in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 2019). Muhammad Amjad Hussain Khan and Aamir Mansoob Qureshi for
Respondents (in Criminal Revisi

STATE THROUGH PROSECUTOR GENERAL SINDH AND ANOTHERS

VS

IMRAN SAWATI AND OTHErs

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 302,109,201,202,34

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 540

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 109, 201, 202 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 540---Qatl-i-amd, abetment, causing disappearance of evidence, intentional omission to give information of an offence, common intention---Summoning of witnesses---Scope---Complainant filed application under S. 540, Cr.P.C., for calling the witnesses of Joint Investigation Team (JIT) as those witnesses were material witnesses who were needed to be examined in order to prove the case and to exhibit JIT report, which application was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---In the present case, the ends of justice would not be served by allowing the trial to be further delayed for a substantial period of time, whilst 6 to 7 witnesses were examined and potentially cross-examined by a number of the accused to the detriment of the accused, who had been languishing in jail for 8 years on account of the failure of the prosecution to properly present and prosecute its case---Complainant tried to fill in lacunas at the very end of the trial to the prejudice of the accused---Scales of justice could not be tilted too far in favour of the prosecution to the prejudice of the accused---Assessment made by the Trial Court through the impugned order at that belated stage was found to be well reasoned and without any legal infirmity---No member of the Joint Investigating Team, who was now sought to be added as a witness (whose name was known at the time when the calendar of witnesses was submitted and could have been dropped later if deemed necessary by the prosecution), was included in the calendar of the prosecution witnesses---No member of the Joint Investigation Team had recorded statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and as such the accused would be prejudiced during cross-examination---No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order was found---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. Zuhrab Gul v. State 2017 YLR 1376; Muhammad Sharif Shar v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1882; Muhammad Murad Abro v. The State 2004 SCMR 966; Nawabzada Shah Zain Bugti v. The State PLD 2013 SC 160; Abdul Salam v The State 2000 SCMR 102; Ansar Mehmood v Abdul Khaliq 2001 SCMR 713; Province of Punjab…
🔒
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