MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 285 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

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

MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS State Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 512---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 47---Qatl-i-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Transposition of statement in subsequent trial---Effect---Complainant/petitioner had implored for transposition of the statement of a witness recorded earlier in the case because of his death---Said application was accepted by the Trial Court---Validity---As per S. 353, Cr.P.C., the evidence should be taken in the presence of accused, if the presence of accused was dispensed with by the competent court, then the statement of witness was to be recorded in the presence of his pleader---If the Trial Court recorded the statement of witnesses in absence of accused, on arrest of accused the court should record the statement of witnesses de novo, provided that such witness was alive---If the witnesses was/were found dead, incapable of giving evidence or his attendance could not be procured without delay or expense then evidence of such witness could be considered---Object of S. 512, Cr.P.C., was to exclude the possibility of lost of evidence or preserve the statement recorded during abscondence of accused---Section 512, Cr.P.C. and Art. 47 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, empowered the court to believe the evidence of a witness if it had been recorded in absence of accused, provided that on arrest of accused, the witness had died or incapable to give evidence or his attendance could not be procured without an amount of delay---Under the said provisions, the protection was given to the deposition of such witnesses who were not alive or incapable to give evidence or their attendance could not be procured without an amount of delay---From the perusal of record, the case fell within the eventualities mentioned in S. 512, Cr.P.C., as the referred witness had died---Contention of petitioner that under S. 353, Cr.P.C., the statement of witness should be recorded in presence of accused had no force---Sections 353, 512, Cr.P.C. and Art. 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, were to be read conjointly not in isolation---Section 512, Cr.P.C., empowered the court to record the statements of witnesses in absentia while Art. 47 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 dealt with the relevance of evidence recorded in judicial proceedings---Petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court---Petition was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs State Ss — 2023 PCrLJ 285 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ