MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another
This criminal revision petition arises from the dismissal of an application filed by the complainant before the Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, seeking to summon Mst. Zahida Parveen as a court witness under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contended that Mst. Zahida Parveen, the wife of the deceased, was interrogated during the investigation, and her testimony is essential for a just decision, despite her statement not being separately recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The prosecution opposed this, arguing it was an attempt to fill lacunae in the case, noting that other eyewitnesses were available. The Court held that the Trial Court must examine the case diaries to determine if Mst. Zahida Parveen was indeed interrogated during the investigation, even if a formal statement was not recorded. If the diaries confirm her interrogation, she should be summoned as a court witness in the interest of justice. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings within one month.
- Can a witness be summoned under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if their statement was not formally recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 but appears in the case diary?
- Does the court have the discretion to summon a witness to ensure a just decision in a criminal trial?
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 540, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of Zahida Parveen was murdered and the real brother of her husband had lodged the F.I.R. Against him. The case is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal. That Mst. Zahida Parveen wife of the deceased was also interrogated during the course of investigation. Although, her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., was not recorded separately, that statement of Mst. Zahida Parveen is essential for the just decision of the case. He further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the application filed by the complainant for calling Zahida Parveen under section 540, Cr.P.C. As court-witness.
2. On the other hand learned A.A.-G. Submits that there are two eyewitnesses of last seen namely, Manzoor Ahmad and Muhammad Bashir. Muhammad Bashir was given up by the prosecution while the other was examined as P.W.2 and prosecution in order to fill up their lacuna, has given the application for the said purpose.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case the learned Trial Court is directed to look into the case diaries and to see whether Mst. Zahida Parveen was examined during the course of investigation and her statement although was not recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
But was written in the case of diary, then she should be summoned as court-witness in the interest of justice. With these observations this petition stands disposed of. Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within one month from today.
Cited by 1 case
- IRSHAD AHMAD vs THE STATE and 4 others 2001 P Cr. L J 1497