Mst. Haseena Mai vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1443 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.

Mst. Haseena Mai VS State Ss. 302(b) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 540---Inherent powers of High Court---Quashing of order---Summoning of witnesses for examination---Application of the petitioner for summoning the witnesses for examination was dismissed---Validity---Perusal of the application submitted by the petitioner under S.540, Cr.P.C, seeking the summoning of witness revealed that in the said application it had been mentioned that the witness was father of the deceased and was the one who had also arrived at the place where the deceased breathed his last; that for the fact that soon after the occurrence, which had taken place on 14.01.2019, as witness had to proceed abroad on 22.01.2019 and only returned to Pakistan on 05.10.2021, therefore, he could not be named a witness in the list of witnesses appended with the private complaint lodged by the petitioner and was sought to be summoned by the said application---Only fact which was sought to be proved by the production of witness was that on the asking of the deceased he was summoned by complainant/petitioner and when he arrived at the place where the deceased was present, the deceased had already died---Such fact that witness was asked to be summoned by the deceased and it was on the asking of complainant that witness arrived at the place where the deceased was present, had already been given evidence of by complainant, who had appeared before the Trial Court and had got her statement recorded---Mere arrival of that witness at the place where the dead body of the deceased was present had no bearing or relevancy for the just decision of the case---Evidence related to fact in issue and relevant facts had already been given by the prosecution witnesses as produced before the Trial Court---Furthermore, the trial Court had already recorded statements of as many as nine Court witnesses, who it thought were essential for the just decision of the case---Trial of the case had been instituted upon the private complaint filed by the petitioner herself and it had not been explained at all as to why the witness was not cited as a witness in the calendar of witnesses appended with the private complaint itself---If the witness was an essential witness then he must have been sought to be examined and his name must have been mentioned in the calendar of witnesses appended with the private complaint itself, which was not done in the present case---In this case despite having an opportunity to apprise the trial Court with regard to the production of witness, the complainant did not do so though witness was very much available and present in Pakistan---All such facts amply proved that the petition filed by the petitioner seeking the summoning of witness was rightly rejected---Petition being meritless was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. Haseena Mai vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1443 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ