Sufi MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE and others
The petitioner, the first informant in a criminal case registered under sections 337-A(ii), 337-A(iii), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that upheld the trial court's acquittal of the accused. The petitioner contended that the trial court had improperly closed the prosecution's evidence after only three witnesses were examined, without making any effort to secure the attendance of remaining witnesses through coercive legal measures, despite the case having been pending since 1991. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether a trial court in a police-challan case can finalize proceedings in favor of the accused solely due to the non-production of evidence, without first attempting to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses through coercive measures as mandated by law. The Court's decision highlights the procedural obligation of trial courts to actively ensure the presence of witnesses before concluding a trial in a manner that results in acquittal.
- Can a trial court in a police-challan case finalize proceedings in favor of the accused solely because the prosecution failed to produce all evidence?
- Is a trial court legally required to resort to coercive measures to secure the attendance of prosecution witnesses before closing the prosecution's evidence?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(iii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Petitioner, who is first informant in case F.I.R. No,116 of 1991 dated 27-3- 1991 registered under section 337A(ii)/337-A(iii)/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Jhelum, has sought leave to appeal against judgment dated 24-11-1996 of a learned Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, declining to set aide the acquittal of the accused directed by the Trial Magistrate vide order dated 4-6-1995.
2. The case of the petitioner is that after submission of the challan by the prosecution the matter remained under trial ever since 27-3-1991 and except for recording the statements of only three witnesses by it, no other effort whatsoever was made to produce other evidence and the same was closed without even so much so resorting to coercive measures in this regard.
3. After hearing the petitioner in person, we are inclined to grant leave to consider the question whether in a police-challan case, the same can be finalized in favour of the accused simply on the ground that evidence has not been produced in its entirety without even so much as noticing that the Trial Court was under the dictate of law required to secure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses by resorting to coercive measures in that regard? Order accordingly.