| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5071 2024 SLD 5071 2024 PCRLJ 1443 |
Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan
Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2023, heard on 22nd November, 2023.
Before Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
Ms. Farah Sharif Khosa for Petitioner. Muhammad Sadiq Rehman, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Abdul Rehman Ahmad Rizwan Sadozi for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2023.
Criminal Revision No. 336 of 2023, heard on 22nd November, 2023.
Before Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J
Ms. Farah Sharif Khosa for Petitioner. Muhammad Sadiq Rehman, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Abdul Rehman Ahmad Rizwan Sadozi for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2023.
Mst. HASEENA MAI---Petitioner
VERSUS
The STATE and d others---Respondents
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 302(b) & 34-,,,,, 561-A & 540-
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898
Section:
.Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 540--Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of order---Summoning of witnesses for examination---Application of the petitioner for summoning the witnesses for examination was dismissed---Validity---Perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner under S.540, Cr.P.C, seeking the summoning of witness revealed that in the said application it had been mentioned that the witness was father of the deceased and was the one who had also arrived at the place where the deceased breathed his last; that for the fact that soon after the occurrence, which had taken place on 14.01.2019, as witness had to proceed abroad on 22.01.2019 and only returned to Pakistan on 05.10.2021, therefore, he could not be named a witness in the list of witnesses appended with the private complaint lodged by the petitioner and was sought to be summoned by the said application---Only fact which was sought to be proved by the production of witness was that on the asking of the deceased he was summoned by complainant/petitioner and when he arrived at the place where the deceased was present, the deceased had already died---Such fact that witness was asked to be summoned by the deceased and it was on the asking of complainant that witness arrived at the place where the deceased was present, had already been given evidence of by complainant, who had appeared before the Trial Court and had got her statement recorded---Mere arrival of that witness at the place where the dead body of the deceased was present had no bearing or relevancy for the just decision of the case---Evidence related to fact in issue and relevant facts had already been given by the prosecution witnesses as produced before the Trial Court---Furthermore, the trial Court had already recorded statements of as many as nine Court witnesses, who it thought were essential for the just decision of the case---Trial of the case had been instituted upon the private complaint filed by the petitioner herself and it had not been explained at all as to why the witness was not cited as a witness in the calendar of witnesses appended…
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