TAHIR ZAHOOR AHMAD vs State Ss — 2022 MLD 523 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

TAHIR ZAHOOR AHMAD VS State Ss. 302, 376, 176, 109, 364, 368, 201, 511 & 118---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-C & 265-D---Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 10-A---Applications for the supply of statements and documents to the accused before framing of charge and for supply of CCTV footage were dismissed---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioners had been provided copies of the statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. separately, however, they required the statements of the persons, who were not part of prosecution witnesses but their statements were recorded by way of 'daryaft' in police diaries---Accused was entitled to have access to all inculpatory and exculpatory evidence and even though a person might not be a witness, but his statement recorded before the police under S.161, Cr.P.C, might have an impact on prosecution's case and/or they might be utilized by the defence during the course of evidence as permissible under the law---In so far as supply of CCTV footage was concerned, the prosecution had already shown willingness to provide the transcript of CCTV footage as recorded in Zimni---Undoubtedly, under Art. 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, right of fair trial was a fundamental right of every citizen of Pakistan---Copy of the recording did not fall within the purview of documents mentioned in S.265-C, Cr.P.C and assuming even if it did, the supply of same could be withheld on account of public interest---CCTV footage was regarding contents of some of the images, which allegedly led to killing of deceased---Provision of recording of the CCTV footage to the accused persons would run a high risk that the video recording might be made public and/or prejudice the trial---Tampering of the copies could also not be ruled out, which might lead to complications in the course of trial---Thus, it would be appropriate that copy of CCTV footage be provided to the accused persons to meet the ends of justice and for safe administration of justice---Once the said document/evidence was exhibited in evidence, the petitioners and other co-accused then had the advantage of cross-examining the prosecution witnesses, if they so desired on the said piece of evidence and also to answer the questions put to them under S.342, Cr.P.C.---In any case, the defence would have the transcript of the contents of the CCTV footage, hence no prejudice would be caused to the accused by non-supply of the said recording at that stage---Petitions were disposed of accordingly.

TAHIR ZAHOOR AHMAD vs State Ss — 2022 MLD 523 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 MLD