Pakistan Case LawHaji MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a criminal revision petition by the High Court, which had upheld a trial court's refusal to summon specific police officers as court witnesses. The petitioner, facing trial for murder and related offenses, sought to examine a Deputy Superintendent of Police and another officer as court witnesses after the prosecution had concluded its evidence. The trial court rejected the application, noting that the officers' statements were recorded after the submission of the challan and that the defense remained at liberty to produce them as defense witnesses. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in refusing to exercise its discretion to summon these individuals as court witnesses. The Supreme Court held that no case for interference was made out, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the testimony of these officers was necessary for a just determination of guilt or innocence. The court affirmed that the trial court's discretion in summoning witnesses is contingent upon the necessity of the evidence for reaching a correct conclusion.
- Is a trial court required to summon police officers as court witnesses merely upon the request of the accused?
- Does the refusal of a trial court to summon specific witnesses constitute a ground for interference if the necessity of their testimony is not established?
- Can the defense produce witnesses as defense evidence if the court declines to summon them as court witnesses?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.---The petitioner and some others are facing trial in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on charges under sections 302 and 304, read with section 149, and section 148, Pakistan Penal Code. The prosecution has concluded its evidence and the trial has been adjourned for recording the statements of the petitioner and the co-accused.
2.On 21-11-1993 the petitioner and the co-accused moved an application before the trial Court for examining Haji Abdul Khaliq and Syed Naseemul Hassan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, as Court witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge rejected this application with the following observations:
"I have gone through the police file and have perused the Ziminis recorded by the said officers. They were recorded after submission of the challan. The prosecution is not bound to produce them in the Court as prosecution witnesses and neither this Court would like to summon them as Court witnesses because the case of either party may not be prejudiced at this stage. However, the defence is at liberty to produce them as defence witnesses if they feel it necessary. Accordingly, the petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed."
The petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court from the order of rejection of his application. It was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that a case for interfering with the order of the trial Court has been made out. The learned Sessions Judge had gone through the police diaries and found that no justification for summoning the said police officers as the Court witnesses had been made out. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us that the evidence of the said police officers was necessary for the Court to come to the right conclusion on the question of the guilt or innocence of the petitioner and the co-accused. In the circumstances, we did not think that is a fit case where leave should be granted to the petitioner. Leave is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments