MUHAMMAD RAHIM SAWATI vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1636 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

MUHAMMAD RAHIM SAWATI VS State Ss. 302(b), 201, 202, 109 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 11-N & 11-V(ii)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 428---Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence, intentional omission to give information of an offence, abetment, common intention, fund raising, directing terrorist activities---application for adducing additional evidence in relation to the video recording of the interview of the accused---Scope---accused were charged for committing murder of a lady who was a Director of a pilot project---Trial of the accused persons commenced on 07.11.2016 when the charge was framed and was completed on 17.12.2021 when the judgment in the trial was handed down---Trial had therefore taken about 5 years to complete and thereafter appeals were filed in December 2021 and January 2022 by the accused persons against their conviction which was about 6 years ago---Present case was a high profile case which was widely reported in both the print and electronic media---Video in question which was sought to be produced by the applicant was aired on TV News Channel in 2016 at the very initial stages of the trial as conceded by the complainant---Said video was therefore known and openly available to any member of the public from that date including the prosecution and the complainant if they had wanted to obtain it for the purpose of a trial which proceeded over a 6 year period---Person who recorded the video could have been traced out relatively easily at that time as it was a recent video and an application could have been made by the prosecution under S. 540, Cr.P.C., to the Trial Court to exhibit it through the evidence of its maker and enabled the accused persons to cross-examine it if it was deemed necessary---authenticity of the video could also have been proven through forensic analysis as required under the law---Report of JIT clearly showed that the members of the concerned JIT had in their possession the evidence which the applicant sought now to adduce through the application---Therefore, that was not new evidence at all and was considered by a JIT whose report was exhibited by the prosecution at trial and was considered by the Trial Court---Video evidence which was sought to be adduced in evidence was not necessary as it related to the retracted confession of one of the accused persons on which the Trial Court placed reliance in convicting the accused persons---It appeared on record that one year after the trial the applicant was seeking to yet further strengthen the prosecution case with respect to such aspect of the case (i.e. the confession of one of the accused persons) when the Trial Court had already agreed with the prosecution point of view concerning the admissibility of the confession---Prosecutor himself had conceded that the additional evidence was not required as the prosecution had already relied on the best evidence being the confession of the accused as opposed to a video recording with no providence and as such it was found that it was not needed/necessary to produce such additional evidence because the Trial Court had already believed the confession of one of the accused persons despite it being retracted by the accused---application could not be allowed for additional evidence since it was an attempt to fill in the lacunas in the prosecution case by attempting to strengthen the prosecution case---To allow the additional evidence at this late stage one year after the convictions and sentences had been handed down to the accused persons based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case would cause prejudice to the accused persons and would be in violation on art. 10a of the Constitution---Even if the application was allowed it would further prejudice the accused by delaying their appeals by months if not years as the piece of evidence which was sought to be adduced would have to undergo stringent tests before it could even be held to be admissible based on the principles of admissibility---application was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD RAHIM SAWATI vs State Ss — 2024 YLR 1636 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR