USMAN ALI vs State art — 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

USMAN ALI VS State art. 10-a---Right to fair trial---Scope---Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of any criminal charge against him and he shall have all the guarantees necessary for his defense. [Para. 27 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State arts. 10 & 10-a---Safeguards as to arrest and detention---Right to fair trial---Scope---Constitution prescribes important safeguards against depriving a person of his "life or liberty" and with regard to arrest and detention, which includes "the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice"---Constitution also mandates a "fair trial and due process"---Person arrested for an offence (1) must be informed of the grounds of his arrest; (2) must be permitted to consult with and be defended by a lawyer; (3) must be provided with the information of the offence he is charged for; (4) must be provided with an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who depose against him; (5) must be given an opportunity to explain the circumstances disclosed in evidence against him; and (6) must also be provided an opportunity to produce evidence in his defense---Such are also necessary ingredients to ensure the fairness of a trial. [Para. 29 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State art. 10-a---Right to fair trial---Scope---No matter how heinous the crime, the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under art. 10-a cannot be taken away from the accused. [Para. 28 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 342---Examination of accused---Scope---?Principles governing examination of accused ?under S. 342, Cr.P.C. detailed. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Supply of statements and documents ?to the accused---Scope---Court seized with the trial ?is under obligation to ensure that none of such ?provisions be compromised and no right is to be ?denied to accused. [Para. 19 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Supply of statements and documents ?to the accused---Scope---Notwithstanding the ?provisions of S. 265-C, Cr.P.C., the Court is ?empowered to issue direction for supply of the ?copies of statements or documents at some other stage of the proceedings as well if the dictates of ?justice so demand. [Para. 17 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Supply of statements and documents ?to the accused---Scope---Where the police officer ?does not record the statement of a witness as ?required by S. 161, Cr.P.C. but writes it in the ?diary mentioned under S. 172, Cr.P.C. its copy ?should also be given to the accused. [Para. 17 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 292-A & 292-C---Exposure to seduction---Child pornography---Supply of statements and documents ?to the accused---Scope---Copy of DVD/CD at ?no stage of trial was supplied to the accused so as ?to disclose him the nature of videos and photos---During the examination-in-chief or cross-examination of any of the witnesses produced by prosecution the videos and photos were not ?displayed---Trial Court was under a duty to show ?the material to the accused at least at the stage of ?examination of victim to enable the accused to ?cross-examine him in that context---Appeal was allowed, conviction of accused was set aside and the ?case was remanded to the Trial Court to proceed with the trial accordingly. [Paras. 20 & 33 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Supply of statements and documents ?to the accused---Scope---Supply of copies of ?evidence to accused is a valuable right. [Para. 14 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Supply of statements and documents ?to the accused---Prosecution maintained that the ?provisions of S. 265-C, Cr.P.C., in cases upon police ?report, state only first information report, police report, statements of all witnesses recorded under ?Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C., and the inspection ?notes recorded by the Investigating Officer and as it ?did not cover any other document, therefore, the Trial Court was under no obligation to supply the ?copy of DVD/CD to appellant---High Court observed ?that the argument had no force at all for the simple ?reason that the documents mentioned in the ?provisions is a minimum standard so if in addition ?thereto, there is any other evidence to be produced ?by the prosecution against an accused copy thereof ?must be supplied and disclosed to him also. [Para. 17 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State Object---Solitary purpose of judicial proceedings in a criminal case is to discover the truth and to arrive at a just decision of the case---Word 'Just' is significant that means 'right, fair, well founded'---Every effort should be made by the Court that no aspect of the case is to be left unattended, prior to declaration of final verdict. [Para. 31 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. ??164---Supply of statements and documents to the ?accused---Scope---Article 164 after insertion of its ?proviso in the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 empowers ?the Court to allow any evidence to be produced that ?becomes available because of modern devices and ?techniques and conviction on the basis thereof is ?lawful---Provisions of S. 265-C, ?Cr.P.C., therefore, cannot be read in isolation and now the ?Courts are under a statutory duty to supply the ?copies of any such document at the relevant stage. [Para. 18 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 342---Examination of accused---Scope---Examination of accused is based on the principles ?of maxim: "Audi Alteram Partem" that means 'no one should be condemned unheard'---Such circumstances to be put to accused are also ?called 'incriminate pieces of evidence'---Word ?incriminating means "a material that has harmful ?effect"---Deviation from such duty shall render ?the conviction invalid. [Para. 23 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 342---Examination of accused---Scope---?Examination of an accused is not mere formality ?by the Court but a mandate to enable him to ?explain any circumstances appearing against him ?in evidence, therefore, every piece of evidence ?which can be used against him for the purpose of ?conviction is required to be put to him. [Para. 23 of the judgment] Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case USMAN ALI VS State S. 265-C---Supply of statements and documents ?to the accused---Scope---Accused person's right to ?know the case against him is based on principles of ?natural justice, therefore, the wisdom behind the provisions is obvious that before commencement of ?trial the accused must know that what evidence ?does the prosecution intend to produce against ?him for the reason that he has to be in a position to ?defend himself properly---Provisions of S. 265-C, ?Cr.P.C., have to be construed liberally---Copies of each ?evidence whether oral or documentary should be ?made available to him---Only the complete and fair ?disclosure of entire evidence to be used against ?accused can ensure a free and transparent trial---Scenario will not change even if an accused has ?himself conceded to, the omission to apply with the ?provisions of S. 265-C, Cr.P.C.---Effect of non-?compliance of the provisions jeopardizes the right of ?fair and impartial trial, therefore, it vitiates the ?whole trial. [Paras. 15 & 16 of the judgment]

USMAN ALI vs State art — 2023 PCrLJN 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported