Saqib Hussain Kiani vs The State through Advocate General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad Ss

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

Saqib Hussain Kiani VS The State through Advocate General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad Ss. 302(b), 342, 147, 148 & 149---arms act (XIII of 1965), S.15(2)---Qatl-i-amd, wrongful confinement, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---appreciation of evidence---Secondary evidence---Scope---autopsy of deceased was conducted by Medical Officer, who also medically examined the accused---Other accused was medically examined by another Medical Officer---Said Medical Officers did not appear before the Court for recording their evidence---application for producing secondary evidence related to such Medical Officers was allowed---Validity---according to the report of process server, said Medical Officers were reported to have not been found in the given address---Thus, Head Clerk, THQ Hospital was summoned for recording his statement as secondary evidence---It was evident from the record that the Trial Court had neither adopted the procedure as provided under Chapter-VI of Cr.P.C. for summoning of said witnesses nor any valid reasons whatsoever had been explained that under what circumstances the said witnesses could not appear before the Trial Court---Trial Court allowed the application simply on the report of process server wherein said witnesses were reported to have not been found on the given addresses---If it was assumed that the said witnesses left the job from their assignments even then it could not be held without ascertaining that there would be no chance to bring them into the witness box for recording their evidence or the said witnesses were out of reach---Trial Court had failed to exercise its powers as provided under Chapter-VI of Cr.P.C. pertaining to summoning of said pivotal witnesses---Furthermore, the Trial Court allowed the application for producing secondary evidence without observing the codal provisions of law, thus the impugned judgment was not maintainable on such ground alone---appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded to decide the matter afresh accordingly.

Saqib Hussain Kiani vs The State through Advocate General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 712 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ