ZUBAIDA KHANAM vs State S — 2026 PLD 493 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.

ZUBAIDA KHANAM VS State S.353---Recording of evidence---Presence of person adducing evidence---Video link, option of---Scope---Application moved by petitioner (lady/complainant) for recording her evidence through video link was turned down by the Trial Court---Objection raised by the respondents/accused was that under S.353, Cr.P.C. all the evidence must be taken in the presence of accused (or when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader), therefore, recording the evidence through video link shall be in flagrant violation of the said provision of law---Validity---The term "presence" used in S.353, Cr.P.C. should be interpreted to include constructive presence to allow the recording of evidence through video conference; meaning thereby that virtual attendance via video conferencing can be considered a substitute for physical presence---Notably, "virtual attendance" of a witness in the court through the medium of video conferencing enables the judge and other persons present in the court to see the witness and hear what he says and vice versa---Thus, such attendance is, in effect, in open court, and his evidence is also recorded under the personal superintendence of the judge---The judge under whose superintendence the evidence through conferencing is recorded can satisfy himself about the free will of the witness present on screen as he does about the witness present physically in court by questioning him in said regard and ensuring that he is not under the immediate influence of any other person---Petitioner was complainant as well as essential witness of the case---Witnesses are most important component of a successful justice system---The prosecution of crimes and the investigation process are both dependent upon the assertions and authentication of witnesses, as such State has an obligation to protect the witnesses---Petitioner seemed to be under threat and it may be risky for her to appear before the Trial Court for recording her evidence---High Court set-aside the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to record the evidence of petitioner/complainant through video link/video conferencing, etc. after observing relevant protocols---Revision petition, filed by the complainant, was allowed accordingly.

ZUBAIDA KHANAM vs State S — 2026 PLD 493 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD