MUHAMMAD FAREEDUN vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad, which refused leave to appeal against the Sessions Judge's rejection of the petitioner's application in the second round of litigation. The core legal question concerns the evidentiary value of statements not recorded under oath and whether witnesses whose statements were recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or otherwise not on oath can be proceeded against for perjury. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit because none of the witnesses gave statements in Court under oath, notably those of Bara Khan and Mst. Samina which were recorded under section 164 or without solemn affirmation, meaning they cannot be prosecuted for perjury. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Can witnesses whose statements are recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without oath be proceeded against for perjury?
- What is the evidentiary status of witness statements not given under oath in court?
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad, dated 2nd July, 1988.
2. This is a second time that the petitioner has approached this Court. His first round of litigation culminated in the judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Fareedun v. The State 1987 SCM R 1962. As per the direction of this Court the learned Sessions Judge, Mansehra, took up the matter and after considering the pros and cons rejected the application of the petitioner vide order, dated 12-3-1988. Leave to appeal sought by the petitioner in the High Court too has been refused through the impugned order.
3. We have heard the petitioner who argued his case in person. He referred us to the various provisions of law in support of his case but to his misfortune none of the witnesses has given any statement in Court under oath. The statements of some of the witnesses, particularly those of Bara Khan and Mst. Samina, were either recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. Or not on oath or solemn affirmation. Therefore, they cannot be proceeded against for perjury.
4. The petition has thus no merit and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.