SHAHBAZ KHAN vs THE STATE And Other
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's revision petition upholding the trial court's order. The core legal question was whether a prosecution witness, even if injured, can independently move the trial court to tender certain evidence that the Public Prosecutor has refused or declined to lead. The Supreme Court held that under Section 265-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the prosecution is conducted by the Public Prosecutor, and the decision regarding what evidence to adduce rests solely with him. A witness has no locus standi to bypass the Public Prosecutor by filing an application to introduce evidence not supported by the prosecution. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that individual witnesses cannot usurp the role of the Public Prosecutor in conducting criminal trials.
- Whether a prosecution witness can apply to the trial court to tender evidence that the Public Prosecutor has not chosen to adduce?
- Does an injured witness have the legal status to bypass the Public Prosecutor in the conduct of a criminal trial?
- Is the decision regarding what evidence the prosecution should lead at trial exclusively within the domain of the Public Prosecutor?
- Section 265-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment dated 2-11- 1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing a revision petition filed by the petitioner.
2. There are two cross cases pending trial in the Court of Sessions at Okara. One has been initiated on a police challan and the other is based on a private complaint. This petition arises out of the trial of the first mentioned case. In this case respondents Nos. 2. 3 and 4 are the accused persons.
During the course of occurrence to which it relates three persons were killed and a number of persons including the petitioner were injured. The F.I.R. Was recorded at the instance of a son of one of the persons killed. The petitioner has appeared as a witness for the prosecution at the trial.
3. When all the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined the petitioner moved an application before the Court that the statements which respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had made in the cross-case during the preliminary hearing of the complaint be permitted to be tendered in evidence. By an order dated 28-7-1986 the learned Sessions Judge rejected his application. The petitioner challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge in revisional jurisdiction in the High Court without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal in this Court.
4. It appears from the record that the application of the petitioner was not supported by the Public Prosecutor. Under section 265-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the prosecution is to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor. That being so, the question as to what evidence the prosecution should adduce at the trial is one for the Public Prosecutor to decide. The petitioner's status at the trial was only that of a witness albeit an injured one. It was not open to him to move the Court to receive evidence which the Public Prosecutor did not wish to lead in support of the charges against the accused persons as it was tantamount to by passing the Public Prosecutor who under the law was incharge o the conduct of the case for the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, rightly decided to reject the application of the petitioner. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.