PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

SAFDAR HAYAT vs State S — 2022 YLRN 198 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2022 YLRN 198 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2022
Parties
SAFDAR HAYAT vs State S
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 540---P; S. 342; Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

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

Judgment text as reported

SAFDAR HAYAT VS State S. 540---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 337-F(iii) & 34---Power to summon the material record---Scope---Petitioner moved applications for rectifying clerical mistake and for summoning record of rescue 15 along with its custodian, which were declined by the Trial Court---Validity---Record showed that the trial was likely to be concluded very soon as the prosecution had closed its evidence and even the statement of the accused had been recorded---It was to be seen if at that stage, the petitioner-accused could be permitted to move such like applica-tions---To ascertain that aspect, the trend of cross-examination and response to the statement got recorded by the petitioner under S.342, Cr.P.C. could be helpful---Detailed answer of the petitioner against question No. 16 of his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., suggested attack by the complainant party on the accused and making of phone call to Rescue 15 by son of the petitioner---Making of phone call to Rescue 15 was not categorically denied by witness and same was the plea raised by the petitioner in his statement---Now it was to be resolved, if in circumstances, the dismissal of the applications filed by the petitioner amounted to denial of fair trial---As per record, the petitioner was the principal accused and had been indicted for the charge of Qatl-i-amd---Petitioner was facing trial and had participated in the proceedings---Prosecution had closed its evidence and statement of petitioner under S.342, Cr.P.C., had been recorded, thus, without touching that aspect that answer to question was not correctly written, suffice it to observe that the accused was favourite child of law and must be provided fair and adequate opportunity, of course, permissible under the law to disprove the charge---Plea raised by the petitioner during trial found mentioned in details under question as well as the trend of cross-examination referred to above---Applications were not filed by the petitioner with inordinate delay but the Trial Court without considering all the above said aspects proceeded to dismiss the said applications without any cogent/ valid reasons which had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner-accused---Impugned orders could not be sustained and liable to be set aside--- Accordingly, it was necessary for the Court to adhere to the rights and guarantees recognized in the proceedings for a fair trial, and to make every effort to improve its quantitative and qualitative level within the justice system---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order and Trial Court was directed to provide an opportunity of producing evidence to the petitioner in his defence.

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English