Ali Zain vs The State, etc
This criminal revision petition was filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. The petitioner sought to set aside an order that disallowed defense counsel from cross-examining a prosecution witness (PW-1), a draftsman, regarding the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in restricting the cross-examination of a witness who did not prepare the site plan and was not an attesting witness to it. The High Court held that the trial court's decision was sound and reasonable. The court reasoned that since the witness was neither the author of the site plan nor an attesting witness, he could not be cross-examined on the contents or accuracy of a document he did not prepare. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that cross-examination must be relevant and directed at a witness competent to testify on the specific subject matter.
- Can a witness be cross-examined on a document, such as a site plan, if they are neither the author nor an attesting witness of that document?
- Does a trial court have the discretion to disallow questions during cross-examination that are deemed irrelevant to the witness's testimony?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Through instant criminal revision under section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with section 435 Cr.P.C., Ali Zain, the petitioner, has prayed for setting aside the order dated 11.03.2024 (wrongly mentioned as 06.03.2024 in prayer) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby the petitioner was not allowed to put question to Syed Muhammad Younus Bukhari draftsman (PW-1) regarding the relevancy of site plan of place of recovery of weapon of offence.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during cross-examination, Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), was questioned about the site plan prepared by him, and the trial court has not allowed putting the question to the said witness as a not relevant question. The petitioner be allowed to put the question on the witness about the site plan he prepared and order dated 11.03.2024 to the extent of disallowing the petitioner to be set aside.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. On perusal of the examination in chief as well as cross-examination conducted by the defence on Muhammad Younus Bukhari draftsman (PW-1), it reveals that during cross-examination, the defence put the question about the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence prepared by the investigating officer to the above said, witness. It is admitted that Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), is not the author of the site plan nor the witness on whose pointing site plan was prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner just wanted to verify the place of occurrence from the prosecution witness. For this reason, he referred to the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner had not prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the weapon of the offence, nor did he remain a witness or, under his instructions, have the site plan prepared.
Muhammad Younus Bukhari, draftsman (PW-1), is not a scriber of the site plan or cannot be considered an attesting witness. Thus, the totality of what has been detailed and discussed in the order impugned before this Court is sound and reasonable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, warranting interference by this Court.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition is without any substance, which is hereby dismissed.