Production of documents and audio video under section 94 crpc and 140 crpc case law.
 |
| Production of documents and audio video under section 94 crpc and 140 crpc case law. |
دستاویزات اور آڈیو/ویڈیو ریکارڈ کی طلبی – لاہور ہائی کورٹ
مقدمے کا پس منظر:
مدعی (ملزم) نے فوجداری مقدمے میں، جس کا تعلق قتل کی ایف آئی آر سے تھا، Rescue-15 کے دفتر سے آڈیو ریکارڈنگ طلب کرنے کی درخواست دی۔ مدعی کا موقف تھا کہ یہ ریکارڈ مقدمے کے حقائق واضح کرنے میں مددگار ہو سکتا ہے۔
عدالت نے کیا فیصلہ دیا؟
درخواست قبل از وقت (premature) تھی۔
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ ثبوت پیش کرنے کا حق صرف اس وقت ہے جب استغاثہ اپنا مقدمہ مکمل کر لے اور ملزم اپنی باری میں دفاع کے لیے ثبوت پیش کرے۔
مقدمے کے مرحلے میں غیر ضروری یا جلدی میں ثبوت طلب کرنا مقدمے کی رفتار میں رکاوٹ پیدا کر سکتا ہے۔
عدالت نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا اور درخواست کو خارج کر دیا۔
قانونی بنیادیں:
سیکشن 94 Cr.P.C.:
کسی بھی مرحلے پر عدالت کسی شخص کو دستاویز یا دیگر شے پیش کرنے کے لیے طلب کر سکتی ہے، بشرطیکہ یہ ضروری یا مفید ہو۔
مگر اس کا اطلاق صرف ضرورت کے مطابق ہوتا ہے، غیر وقتی درخواست قابل قبول نہیں۔
سیکشن 140 Cr.P.C.:
عدالت کو حق ہے کہ وہ مطلوبہ گواہ یا دستاویز کی فراہمی کا حکم دے، لیکن یہ صرف دفاع کی باری میں ممکن ہے۔
سیکشن 265-F Cr.P.C.:
استغاثہ پہلے اپنا مقدمہ پیش کرے گا۔
ملزم کو اپنا دفاع پیش کرنے کا موقع تب ملے گا، اور تب وہ گواہ طلب کرنے یا دستاویز پیش کرنے کا حق رکھتا ہے۔
عدالت نے اس سیکشن کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے کہا کہ مدعی کی درخواست استغاثہ کے مقدمے کے دوران غیر مناسب اور قبل از وقت تھی۔
عدالت کے اہم نکات:
ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ استغاثہ پہلے اپنا مقدمہ ثابت کرے، تب ملزم اپنے دفاع میں ثبوت پیش کرے۔
ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ غیر وقتی درخواست مقدمے کو طول دینے یا رکاوٹ ڈالنے کے مترادف ہے۔
ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ملزم کو ثبوت طلب کرنے کا حق صرف اپنی باری میں حاصل ہے۔
ہائیکورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ ٹرائل کورٹ نے درست طریقے سے درخواست کو خارج کیا، اور یہ فیصلہ قانونی اور معقول ہے۔
خلاصہ:
یہ فیصلہ واضح کرتا ہے کہ:
سیکشن 94 اور 140 Cr.P.C. کے تحت دستاویزات اور آڈیو/ویڈیو ریکارڈ طلب کرنے کا حق تب استعمال ہوگا جب عدالت اسے ضروری سمجھے اور یہ دفاع کی باری میں ہو۔
غیر وقتی درخواستیں، چاہے وہ اہم مواد کی طلب کے لیے ہوں، مقدمے کی رفتار کو متاثر کر سکتی ہیں اور عدالت اسے خارج کر سکتی ہے۔
ملزم کا حق ہے کہ وہ ثبوت طلب کرے، مگر صرف اس وقت جب استغاثہ اپنا مقدمہ مکمل کر لے۔
حکم نامے میں درخواست گزار کی جانب سے فوجداری مقدمے میں ریسکیو 15 سے آڈیو ریکارڈنگ طلب کرنے کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا گیا ، جس میں اس بات کو اجاگر کیا گیا ہے کہ درخواست گزار کی درخواست قبل از وقت تھی۔ عدالت نے فیصلہ دیا کہ ایسے شواہد کی تیاری تب ہی جائز ہے جب استغاثہ اپنا مقدمہ مکمل کر لے اور دفاع اپنی باری میں ثبوت پیش کرے۔ عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ یہ استغاثہ کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ وہ پہلے اپنا مقدمہ ثابت کرے، اور ملزم صرف ایک بار ثبوت اور گواہوں کی درخواست کر سکتا ہے جب استغاثہ اپنی پیشی مکمل کر لے۔ اس طرح، غیر وقتی اور ممکنہ طور پر رکاوٹ بننے کی وجہ سے درخواست کو خارج کرنے کے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا گیا۔
Must read judgement
Form No:HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
RAWALPINDI BENCH
RAWALPINDI
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Crl.Rev.No.265 of 2023
Raja Asad Kiani
Versus
Addl.Sessions Judge etc.
S.No. of
order/
Proceedings
Date of order/
Proceedings
Order with signature of Judge and that of
Parties or counsel, where necessary.
08.11.2023 Raja Faisal Ghani Janjua, Advocate for the petitioner.
Petitioner being an accused in case FIR
No.32 Dated 08.02.2023 offences u/ss 302/109/34
PPC P.S. Sohawa, District Jhelum has challenged
order dated 23.10.2023 passed by learned
Addl.Sessions Judge, Sohawa/trial Court, whereby
his application for summoning the record/Rapt with
Audio recording from the office of Rescue-15 has
been dismissed.
2.
Before going to the merits of the case, it
would be significant to examine the objective, import
and powers of the court within meaning of section
540, Cr.P.C. which is hereby reproduced:-
“Power to summon material witness or examine persons
present. Any Court may, at any stage of any inquiry, trial or
other proceeding under this Code, summon any person as a
witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not
summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person
already examined and the Court shall summon and examine
or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence
appears to it essential to the just decision of the case.”
3.
Sub-section (1) to section 94 Cr.P.C. for
reference is also hereby reproduced:-
“Summons to produce document or other thing. (1)
Whenever any Court, or any officer in charge of a police
station considers that the production of any document or
other thing is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any
investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this
Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may
issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the
person in whose possession or power such document or
thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce
Crl. Rev. No.265 of 2023
2
it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the
summons or order……”
4.
In view of above, any party may at any
stage of the inquiry or trial apply to the Court, u/s
94 Cr.P.C., for the production of any document or
other thing and is entitled to its production, if it
satisfies the court that the production of that
document is necessary or desirable for the purposes
of such inquiry or trial but in present case contents
of the application of the petitioner do not show that
production of audio recording under question at
this stage, when prosecution is leading its evidence,
is necessary for the purpose of trial.
5.
Legislature has provided a mechanism for
both prosecution and defence (accused) to bring
their respective evidence including exhibiting of
document (s). Suffice it to say that the moment
Court takes cognizance on a criminal charge, it
becomes obligatory upon the prosecution to prove
the charge against the accused (denied by the accused)
well within the meaning of Article 117 of the
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, which is hereby
reproduced:-
“Burden of proof. (1) Whoever desires any Court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those
facts exist.
(2) When a person is bound to prove the existence of any
fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that
person.”
6.
In view of above, an accused enjoys the
status of “innocence” till found guilty by the Court
on the basis of discharge of such burden by the
prosecution, nevertheless, if the accused takes a
particular plea, including plea of alibi the burden is
upon the accused to prove such plea well within
Crl. Rev. No.265 of 2023
3
the meaning of Article 119 of Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order 1984 which is hereby reproduced:-
“Burden of proof as to particular fact. The burden of
proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who
wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is
provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on
any particular person.”
7.
The question arises that how and in what
manner the prosecution has to prove the charge
and when accused has to step forward to
discharge his respective burden or cause the dent
in prosecution case by leading evidence, answer
thereof is mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) & (4)
to section 265-F Cr.P.C. which are hereby
reproduced:-
“Evidence of Prosecution (1). if the accused does not
plead guilty or the Court in its discretion does not convict
him on his plea, the Court shall proceed to hear the
complainant (if any) and take all such evidence as may be
produced in support of the prosecution.
Provided that the Court shall not be bound to hear any
person as complainant in any case in which the complaint
has been made by a Court.
(2).
The Court shall ascertain from the public prosecutor
or, as the case may be, from the complainant, the names
of any persons likely to be acquainted with the facts of the
case and to be able to give evidence for the prosecution,
and shall summon such persons to give evidence before it.
(4). When the examination of the witnesses for the
prosecution and the examination (if any) of the
accused are concluded, the accused shall be asked
whether he means to adduce evidence.”
8.
These provisions make it clear that it is
the prosecution which has to lead its side first and
this is so because the burden is upon the
prosecution to prove its case, only after conclusion
of prosecution evidence, accused is to be asked
whether he wants to adduce evidence or not.
9.
The sub-section (7) to Section 265-F
Cr.P.C. guarantees that the accused shall also
have the same right to examine defence witnesses
and production of document(s) which is hereby
reproduced for reference:
Crl. Rev. No.265 of 2023
4
“(7)If the accused or any one or several accused, after
entering on his defence, applies to the Court to issue
any process for compelling the attendance of any
witness for examination or the production of any
document or other thing, the Court shall issue such
process unless it considers that the application is
made for the purpose of vexation or delay or defeating
the ends of justice such ground shall be recorded by
the Court in writing”.
10.
The provisions of section 265-F Cr.P.C.
have provided a complete procedure for both;
prosecution and the accused to examine the
witnesses and to produce document(s), since the
procedure has made it clear that accused shall be
asked to adduce his evidence after conclusion of
the prosecution evidence. If accused wants the
court to summon any person to give evidence or to
produce any document, he shall have to wait till
conclusion of the prosecution evidence.
11.
In present case, the trial is at the stage of
prosecution evidence, six prosecution witnesses
have been recorded but petitioner being an
accused has not cross-examined any of the PWs
and moved an application on 10.07.2023 for
summoning the record/Rapt with Audio recording
from the office of Rescue-15 stating therein that on
08.02.2023 at 8.05 a.m. Sharjeel Kiyani
(complainant) made a call through his mobile phone
number i.e.
0310-9555555) to
Rescue-15
informing the murder of his father. Photocopy of
the report prepared by Muhammad Afzaal S.I.,
placed at page-13 of this petition shows that on
08.02.2023 at 8.10 a.m. operator Rescue-15 had
informed police station that through mobile
number 0310-9555555 a call was received at
Rescue-15 with information that dead body of his
father smeared with blood is lying on the passage
leading to village Ghorra, police officials be
Crl. Rev. No.265 of 2023
5
directed to reach the place of occurrence.
Whereupon he along with other police officials
mentioned in the report of Rescue-15 reached the
place of occurrence. In response, final feedback
was received at Rescue-15. Office Report in this
respect has also been placed at page-14 of this
petition.
12.
All this shows that audio call statedly
made by the complainant in the office of Rescue 15
has been documented, record of which statedly
obtained by the petitioner being an accused placed
at pages 13 & 14 of this petition can be confronted
to relevant witnesses during cross-examination, if
so desired. There is no ambiguity that in view of
provisions of sub-section 7 to section 265-F
Cr.P.C. (reproduced above), petitioner has the right to
summon record/relevant witness regarding matter
in issue but only on his turn i.e. entering on his
defence and not before this stage.
13.
Learned trial court while dismissing the
application of the petitioner through impugned
order has rightly observed that application of the
petitioner is pre-mature, rather same has been
moved to cause delay in conclusion of trial instead
of cross-examining the witnesses
of the
prosecution already recorded discussed above
which order is neither perverse nor illegal. This
petition having no merits is dismissed.
(SADAQAT ALI KHAN)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting
JUDGE