Muhammad Altaf kiani vs Mudassar Iqbal S — 2024 PCrLJ 1939 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

Muhammad Altaf kiani VS Mudassar Iqbal S. 540---Recalling of witness---Scope---Petitioner sought recalling of a prosecution witness to obtain a report, and his petition in such regard was accepted by the Trial Court---Respondents lodged revision petition before the High Court, which was accepted, overturning the Trial Court's decision---Validity---Section 540 Cr.P.C., empowers the Trial Court to summon or recall witnesses or admit essential evidence, regardless of its formal admission status, if it is deemed necessary for a just decision---Once a witness has recorded his statement in examination-in-chief and has been cross-examined by the other side, the party may re-examine the witness; but the purpose behind re-examination is to give the witness an opportunity to explain any matter raised during cross-examination provided that these matters are restricted only to the questions raised during cross-examination and whose cross-examination has perhaps resulted in a muddled, confused or inconsistent statement between the testimony of witness in cross-examination and his prior statement in examination-in-chief---Primary purpose of cross-examination is to clarify such confusions and inconsistencies---However, re-examination can not be employed to rectify the flaws and fill the gaps of the case---Party cannot introduce new facts or opinions during re-examination that should have been presented in examination-in-chief and are not addressed during cross-examination---After reviewing the case record, it was evident that the document in question, for which the complainant requested the Court to recall the witness was part of the Trial Court's file (challan)---Such document had previously been presented during the testimony of prosecution witness, who stated that witness, required to be summoned, was present when opinion was sought---Moreover, it was noted that name of summoned witness appeared to be mentioned on the Istaswabia Report---Regarding the said Istaswabia Report, the police raised a crucial question regarding whether weapons/devices could cause fatal harm, which required clarification by a medical professional---Having concluded that the trial Court properly accepted the petitioner's application, the High Court made a significant legal error in issuing the impugned order---Revision petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Muhammad Altaf kiani vs Mudassar Iqbal S — 2024 PCrLJ 1939 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ