EJAZ AHMED vs STATE
This criminal revision application arises from an order passed by the trial court regarding the procedure for Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood in a case involving a charge of Qatl-e-Amd. The applicant challenged the trial court's order, which held that the credibility of witnesses under Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood would be determined at the time of final judgment, while questions regarding credibility would be put to witnesses before recording evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court's approach sufficiently satisfied the requirements for Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood in cases involving potential Hadd punishments. The High Court held that while the trial court's general approach was not fundamentally flawed, it required clarification to ensure compliance with the standards established by the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that for the purpose of imposing a Hadd punishment, the standards of evidence prescribed in the Qur'an and Sunnah must be strictly met. Consequently, the Court directed that the process of Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood must adhere to the principles laid down in Ghulam Ali v. The State, specifically requiring that the Muzakki be examined when questions are put to witnesses.
- Is the determination of witness credibility under Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood restricted to the final judgment stage?
- Must the Muzakki be examined at the time questions are put to witnesses in cases involving Hadd punishments?
- Does the procedure for Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood require adherence to the principles laid down in Ghulam Ali v. The State?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 17, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant has been charged with commission of Qatl-e-Amd under section 302 of Pakistan Penal Code. The applicant submitted an application that Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood be conducted in respect of all prosecution witnesses, whereupon the learned trial Court passed impugned order dated 13-10-1999 it was observed that credibility of witness under Tazkiyat-ul-Shahood will be considered at the time of passing judgment, but in compliance with section 17 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order questions will be put to the witness before recording his evidence. The applicant does not seem to be satisfied with this order and has moved this Court under section 439, Cr.P.C.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Shahadat Awan, learned counsel for the applicant and Miss Rana Khan, Advocate for the State, at great length.
3. ' Mr. Awan has argued that in case the charge for Qatal liable to Qisas (which is a Hadd punishment) is to be pressed, the standards of evidence according to Holy Qur'an and Sunnah have to be met in terms of section 304, P.P.C., though the applicant may be subjected to Ta'zir punishment even if such standards are not met. Therefore, he argued that Tazkiat-ul-Shahood was required to be conducted according to the method elaborately laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court (Shariat Appellate Bench) in Ghulam Ali v. The State PLD 1986 SC 741.
4. I have carefully gone through the requirements prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court, pointed out by the learned counsel. Viewed in the above context, no serious objection can be found to the observations of the learned trial Court to the effect that questions will be put to the witness (to determine his credibility) before recording his evidence, though his credibility will finally be determined at the time of passing judgment. Mr. Awan, however, has pointed out that mere putting of questions to a witness for determining Tazkiat-ul-Shahood is not the only requirement of law. In the Circumstances, to allay any misapprehension it may be observed that for the purpose of imposing a Hadd punishment, it is necessary that standards of evidence prescribed in Qur'an and Sunnah are met and accordingly Tazkiatul-Shahood is determined on the basis of principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Ali v. The State PLD 1986 SC 741. Accordingly, Muzakki's will also have to be examined at the time when questions are being put to witnesses.
5. ' With these observations, application stands disposed of alongwith miscellaneous applications.