ZULFIQAR ALI vs FAYAAZ BHATTI And 6 Other
This criminal revision petition arises out of proceedings before a trial court where the petitioner-complainant raised apprehensions regarding certain statements made by a medical witness during cross-examination, alleging they were vague and intended to benefit the accused persons involved in a criminal incident. The core legal question concerns the scope and propriety of re-examining a witness to resolve ambiguities arising from cross-examination under the rules of evidence. The Lahore High Court held that the trial judge's order permitting re-examination to clarify ambiguities did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, noting that mere apprehension of prejudice is insufficient unless mala fides are established. The court laid down the principle that while re-examination is directed to explaining matters referred to in cross-examination, if a witness makes conceding statements with mala fide intention during re-examination, the aggrieved party may approach the trial court for appropriate permission to further cross-examine on that matter.
- Whether a witness can be subjected to re-examination to resolve ambiguities arising during cross-examination?
- Can the adverse party further cross-examine a witness if new matter is introduced during re-examination with permission of the Court?
- What is the proper procedure under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 regarding the order of examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of witnesses?
- Article 133, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
- Article 150, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
Lengthy arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the parties. According to the petitioner i.e. The learned counsel for the complainant during cross-examination of the doctor has made a statement which is vague and is intended to help the accused-persons to demonstrate that Mumtaz injured was being examined when the dead body of Nadeem Chaudhry was brought in the hospital for post-mortem examination. He has also expressed his apprehension that an attempt has been made to create an impression that Fayyaz and Shahbaz were being examined during the Hangama. According to the prosecution Fayyaz and Shahbaz participated in the Hangama and they were creator of the same.
2. The learned trial Judge after hearing arguments of the parties observed that the ambiguity can be resolved by subjecting the witness to re--examination. The learned trial Judge had not denied that a witness if makes certain uncalled for concession during cross-examination and brings on record some material which is extraneous to the matter in issue can be subjected to cross- examination by the prosecution but for that they have to show that the same had been done with some mala fide intention., but according to learned trial Judge such malice was not visible or apparent, therefore, he observed that the ambiguity, if any, can be clarified through re- examination. The order to this extent does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, according to him, genuinely apprehends that the witness may extend more concession to the accused-persons and that would further damage his case. This situation has not arisen so far. If during re-examination the witness makes some conceding statement with mala fide intention, the petitioner may repeat his application and the learned trial Judge will consider the same on its merits and if he feels that the same has been made with mala fide intention, he may permit the cross-examination of the witness.
3. The scheme of examination of witnesses had been detailed in sections 133 and 150 of the Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984 which are reproduced as under:-- "(133) Order of Examination.---(1) Witnesses shall be first examined-in---chief then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires), re-examined.
(2) The examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts but the cross- examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witnesses testified on his examination- in-chief.
(3) The re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross- examination and, if new matter is, by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-examine that matter.
(150) Question by party to his own witness. ----The Court may, in its discretion permit the person who calls a witness to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party.
This revision petition is, therefore, disposed of with these observations.