SAIFULLAH and 3 others vs THE STATE
This criminal revision application concerns the right of an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses during a criminal trial. The applicants, facing trial in a Sessions case, alleged that the trial court improperly disallowed relevant and material questions during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer, thereby depriving them of a fundamental right. The High Court affirmed that the right of cross-examination is a most valuable right, essential for testing the veracity of witness statements, particularly in criminal trials where the liberty of the accused is at stake. While acknowledging that trial courts must prevent the abuse of cross-examination through prolonged or irrelevant questioning, the Court held that excessive judicial intervention that curtails legitimate cross-examination leads to a miscarriage of justice. Finding that the applicants were prejudiced by the trial court's restrictions, the High Court accepted the State's concession and directed the Sessions Judge to withdraw the case from the current trial court and either try it personally or reassign it to another Additional Sessions Judge to ensure a fair trial.
- Is the right of an accused to cross-examine prosecution witnesses considered a fundamental right in criminal trials?
- Does the excessive curtailment of cross-examination by a trial judge constitute a miscarriage of justice?
- What is the appropriate remedy when a trial court improperly restricts the cross-examination of a witness?
- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984
ORDER
The applicants are facing trial in Sessions Case No,267 of 2000 before the learned First. Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (West).
2. The grievance of the applicants is that they were not allowed to properly cross-examine the Investigating Officer and the relevant and material questions were disallowed by the learned trial Court. It is argued that the cross-examination is a valuable and basic right of an accused person and he cannot be deprived of that right, as it was bound to result in miscarriage of justice.
3. Learned State counsel has, at the very outset; conceded that the accused cannot be deprived of the basic right allowed by the law. He, therefore fairly proposes that the matter be remanded to the learned Sessions Judge. West, Karachi with a direction that either the matter be tried by her or be entrusted to some other Additional Sessions Judge.
4. I have considered the contentions raised before me.
5. No doubt the right of cross-examination since times immemorial has been held to be a most valuable right to a party. A statement of witness under the Qanun-e-Shahadat is not effective and complete unless it has stood the test of cross-examination. The right of cross-examination is of particular importance for accused persons in criminal trials involving their life and liberty depending on the verbal statements of the witnesses deposing against them.
6. Of -course, there is a regrettable practice among a class of lawyers to use prolonged cross- examination, for the purpose of leading a witnesses into error, which has to be discouraged.
Nevertheless, while it is the duty of every Court to keep the cross-examination of a witness within legitimate bounds it must be careful, in the discharge of that duty, not to exercise too effective control so as to unduly curtail legitimate cross-examination.
7. Be that as it may, too much interruption in the course of the cross-examination of witness by the counsel for the accused has, more often than not, the result of robbing the cross-examination must be avoided by the Presiding Judge.
8. Such curtailment of right was bound to prejudice the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
9. I am fully convinced by the proposal as advanced by the learned State Counsel which appears to be quite just and fair.
10.Accordingly Sessions Judge, Karachi West is directed to withdraw Sessions Case No,267 of 2000 (State v. Saifullah and others) from the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, West and either proceed with the case herself or entrust the same to some other Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for the applicants states at the bar that no any irrelevant question was asked by him. He further undertakes that he will not prolong the cross-examination of P.W. for any reason.
With the above direction the present criminal revision application stands disposed of alongwith listed application.
Cited by 1 case
- LIAQUAT ALI CHANNA vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GAMBAT, DISTRICT 2012 P Cr. L J 1979