Pakistan Case Law
2003 PCRLJ 624

ABBAS Versus THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2003 PCRLJ 624
CourtFederal Shariat Court
Case No.Criminal Revision No.30/L of 2002
Date2002-05-30
Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Dogar
ResultPetition accepted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This criminal revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, allowing the re-summoning of a prosecution witness to correct an inadvertent mistake regarding the time of the occurrence stated during her testimony. The core legal question concerns whether a witness can be recalled and re-examined to correct a mistake in their deposition at trial. The Federal Shariat Court held that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act allowing a witness to be recalled merely to correct a mistake made while appearing at trial, as doing so would grant an improper licence to the prosecution to alter testimony to the detriment of the accused. The court laid down the principle that while a witness may be recalled if they were not examined on a material issue, they cannot be re-summoned simply to rectify or amend a previously recorded statement.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can a witness be recalled for examination to correct a mistake made while appearing at trial?
  • Does the Criminal Procedure Code permit re-summoning a witness to rectify an inadvertent error in their testimony?
  • Under what circumstances may a witness be legally re-called during a trial?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
revision petitionre-summoning of witnesscorrection of statementcriminal procedureprosecution evidence

This revision petition is directed against order dated 16‑4‑2002, by Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.

2. The facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as under:‑‑

"Mst. Samina Bibi, P.W.1, complainant in this case filed an application before the trial Judge that in her statement as well as in the statements of Yasin and Alam Sher, P.Ws.2 and 3, respectively, time of occurrence was written as 3‑00 a.m. She stated that time of occurrence, in fact was 3‑00 p.m. and same finds mention in the complaint, as well as in the statements made by the P.Ws. during inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C. and at the time of framing of charge against the accused. Request was made to re‑summon the witness."

3. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or the Evidence Act, that a witness can be re‑called for examination about a mistake made by him, while appearing at trial. Even if it was in advertent. The authors of the law in their wisdom, had not added such a provisions because that would have amounted to give the licence to the prosecution to request for re‑calling any witness for correcting any portion of his statement detriment of the prosecution. Of course a witness can be re‑called if he was not examined on some issue pertaining to the case.

Learned counsel appearing for the State also expressed inability to defend the impugned order. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside.

Learned trial Judge have also the powers to interpret any piece of evidence in any manner. He may do whatever he feels just, after hearing arguments of the parties at the ends of the trial. This petition is, therefore, allowed.

N.H.Q./99/FSC Petition accepted.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.