| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5390 2025 SLD 5390 = 2025 LHC 7277 = 2026 PLD 493 |
Criminal Revision No. 66407 of 2025
PRESENT; (TANVEER AHMAD SHEIKH) JUDGE
20.11.2025. Rana Sajjad Hussain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mian Arif Sukhera, Advocate for respondents. Syed Jarar Haider Shah, Advocate for respondent No.5. Mr. Usama Bahadar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Rao Atif Khan and Hammad Iftikhar Syed, Deputy District Public Prosecutors with Mubashir, S.I. and Zaheer, S.I.
Zubaida Khanam.
VERSUS
The State and 05 others.
Law: Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018
Section: 20
Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
Section: 164
Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
Section: 353
Case Summary
The criminal revision petition challenged an order whereby the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, dismissed the complainant’s application seeking recording of her evidence through video link in a murder trial. The complainant asserted that she and her family were under serious threat from the accused, compelling her to relocate, and that her physical appearance in Court would endanger her life.
The High Court, after examining the statutory framework under the Punjab Witnesses Protection Act, 2018, Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and relevant precedents, held that courts possess ample authority to record evidence through video conferencing where circumstances so demand. The apprehension of threat was found genuine, and denial of video-link testimony was held to be contrary to law and the object of witness protection. The impugned order was set aside.
Tag Line
Witness under threat—Evidence through video link—Constructive presence under section 353 Cr.P.C.—Order refusing video conferencing set aside.