Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAUHEED ABBAS vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAUHEED ABBAS VS State S. 342---Power to examine the accused---Scope---Re-recording statement of accused---Appellant (accused) assailed the order of the Trial Court whereby the Trial Court deemed it appropriate to re-record his detailed statement under S. 342-A, Cr.P.C., on the ground that earlier statement was not recorded properly by the Predecessor of the Court---Held, that no express provision was available for recording of statement more than once in second part of the S. 342, Cr.P.C., yet first part authorized to ask as many questions at any time as the court desired and wish of the court was obviously regulated not by whims but by the principle that any piece of evidence appearing against accused needed his reply or clarification before it was used against him, and it was the base line principle of natural justice borrowed from the maxim "Audi Alteram Partem", meaning no one should be condemned unheard---Evidence not put to the accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., could not be used against him for recording any observation making part of main platform which was set to erect a guilt-edifice against him---Appellate courts usually remand the case on the deficiency of questions put to accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C. on the principle that Trial Court before relying upon any evidence should have sought explanation of accused about it, which indirectly is a message that if any evidence was skipped or lost sight of putting to the accused but was essential to be relied upon, the Trial Court before proceeding further must put some additional questions in that respect which was in line with first part of S. 342, Cr.P.C., authorizing the court to ask question at any stage of the proceedings without warning him---Allegation of filling lacuna was usually attributed to the litigating parties on whose applications court sometimes misread the situation but it could not be leveled against the court which always looks for doing complete justice and in that respect was authorized to use its inquisitorial pocket in an adversarial system---Trial Court was authorized to dilate upon all pieces of evidence for a reply of accused to be considered later in order to appreciate the evidence of prosecution, yet recording of statement under S.342, Cr.P.C., afresh in the case was not desirable rather court could put additional questions encompassing the evidence appearing against him and was intended to be used by the court for recording any observation relating to guilt or otherwise of the accused and such arrangement was in consonance with the spirit of first part of S. 342, Cr.P.C---Petition was, therefore, dismissed with the direction that Trial Court shall put additional questions to the accused as per available evidence and shall treat it part of statement earlier recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C., for realizing any point of determination in the final judgment.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case TAUHEED ABBAS vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ