Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 133 of 1985/BWP, decided on 19th October, 1985.

‑‑Ss. 10 & 18‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 452‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 540 & 439‑‑Application for re‑examination as witness‑‑Petitioner/complainant, who refused to support prosecution case when examined as prosecution witness and was declared hostile, moving petition for re‑examination on grounds that her statement was not correct as she had been coerced to make it because of institution of a false case against her husband at instance of accused party and because accused party had snatched her daughter on day before recording of her statement by trial Court and that she had been intimidated and threatened with murder of her daughter in case she supported prosecution case‑‑Petitioner represented by three counsel when she appeared as prosecution witness and refused to support prosecution case and where husband and other interested persons prevailed upon her to resile from her earlier statement on which she moved application under S. 540, Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Petition, held, within force in circumstances‑‑System of administration of justice a on criminal side would be reduced to a farce if such course of action allowed as by this process witnesses would be allowed to approbate and reprobate and such course of action would encourage perjury in Courts‑‑Order of Sessions Judge rejecting application of petitioner for making another statement upheld.

‑‑‑S. 540‑‑Increasing tendency on part of witnesses to make false statements before Courts due to defect in sanction of oath administered to witnesses‑‑System of administering oath, held, required thorough probe so as to have such sanction which could prick conscience in event of its violation.

‑‑‑S. 540‑‑Evidence‑‑Woman as a witness‑‑Status of woman in Society‑‑ Woman acting as a tool at behest of party or person upon whom she was dependent‑‑Male chauvinism in male oriented society reducing woman to chattel due to economic social circumstances and mostly due to lack of education.

Syed Munawar Hussain Naqvi for, Petitioner.

Mst. Ubaida has filed this revision petition assailing the order, dated 24‑9‑1985 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, whereby an application moved by her under section 540, Cr.P.C. for her re‑examination as a witness was dismissed.

2. The brief circumstances of the case are, that the petitioner was complainant in a case. registered at her instance against the respondents under the provisions of section 10/18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, read with section 452 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On 11‑5‑1985, the petitioner appeared as P.W. 3 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, and she refused to support the prosecution case, whereupon she was declared hostile and was gross‑examined by the A.P.P. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner moved an application under section 540, Cr.P.C., alleging, that her statement on 11‑5‑1985 was not correct and she had been coerced to make the aforesaid statement, because of the institution of a false criminal case against her husband at the instance of the accused party. The petitioner further submitted, that the accused party had snatched her daughter a day before the recording of her statement by the trial Court on 11th of May, 1985. It was further submitted, that she had been intimidated and threatened with the murder of her daughter in case she supported the prosecution case.

3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments dismissed the said application. Through this revision the said order is being assailed.

4. I have carefully considered all the aspects of the case. I do not find any merit in this petition. The system of the Administration of Justice on the criminal side will be reduced to a farce, if such course of action is allowed, inasmuch, as by this process the witnesses will be allowed to approbate and reprobate. Such course of action has its own evils, it would tend to encourage perjury in Courts. We cannot close our eyes to the prevalent increasing tendency on the part of the witnesses to make false statements: It is well‑known, that outside the Courts the witnesses would speak truth, but the moment they appear in the Courts; they without any prick of conscience would depose falsely. The defect lies in the sanction of the oath, presently the oath administered to the witnesses does not deter them, but encourages them to become brazen faced liars. It is high time for all concerned to think over and to suggest such suitable oath in consonance with the religion customs and norms of the people of the various areas, which would deter them to tell lies in Court. Those responsible for the administration of Justice have also noticed, that in certain areas oath on Holy Qura'n and Almighty God has no sanctity, as against the oath of Talaq to wife. That is why I have observed, that the system of administering oath requires of thorough probe, so as to have such sanction, which could prick the conscience in the event of its violation. In this, behalf, it would be desirable to empower Courts to administer such oath, which can operate as sanction.

5. Commenting on the facts of this case, the petitioner was being represented by three counsels on 11th of May, 1985, when she refused to support the prosecution case. It seems, that subsequently her husband and other interested persons prevailed upon her to resile from her earlier statement, that is why an application under section 540, Cr.P.C. was moved. It is further unfortunate to note, that in our society the woman does not enjoy any status. She is to .act as a tool, at the behest of a party or person upon whom she becomes dependent in all material respects and the most vital being the economic factor: It is the male chauvinism in male oriented society, which has reduced the woman to chattel particularly in this area of the Province known as Bahawalpur Division. Of course, I am conscious, that economic social circumstances have its own force, but the lack of education is the most vital factor.

6. For he foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application of the petitioner for making another statement. With l, these observations, this petition is dismissed.

M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.