Police officers walk past the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, in Islamabad, Pakistan April 6, 2022. REUTERS
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court issued important guidelines regarding courtroom practices and expressed concerns about the length of cross-examinations and the practice of repeatedly asking witnesses similar questions by multiple defense attorneys.
In a recent ruling, he warned that such tactics could constitute an abuse of the right of cross-examination and advised trial judges to actively supervise proceedings and reject irrelevant or demeaning questions intended to harass witnesses.
The court also ordered that witnesses must be provided with a seating arrangement while recording their testimony. She observed that there is no legal requirement for witnesses to stand during their statements.
He said forcing individuals – particularly victims of sexual offenses – to stand for long periods could undermine their dignity and ability to give effective evidence.
The court directed the SC registrar to circulate the judgment to all high courts for implementation by subordinate courts and tribunals.
A three-member court has rejected a criminal motion seeking to consolidate two separate trials in rape cases and the subsequent online release of related materials.
The court headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and comprising Justices Salahuddin Panhwar and Ishtiaq Ibrahim ruled that separate trials in the cases could proceed independently, holding that the two offenses constitute separate acts under different legal regimes.
The petition filed by Maham Fatima challenged an order of the Lahore High Court (LHC) which had earlier rejected a plea seeking to consolidate two criminal cases arising from separate FIRs linked to the same sequence of events.
According to the written order written by Justice Panhwar, the case arose out of complaints filed by medical student Khadija Ghafoor in Faisalabad in August 2022.
The complainant first approached the cybercrime section of the Federal Investigation Agency, alleging that a video of her attack had been recorded and distributed online.
The next day, she filed another complaint at a women’s police station, leading to the registration of a separate case under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code relating to rape, assault, kidnapping and false imprisonment.
A second FIR was later registered by the FIA under the provisions of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 to record and share the alleged video of the incident.
Investigations were carried out by different agencies under separate statutory frameworks, resulting in two complaints being filed in courts operating under separate laws, including the Rape (Investigation and Trial) Act, 2021.
The accused had repeatedly requested to consolidate the trials, arguing that the two FIRs related to the same incident and should therefore be tried together to avoid conflicting judgments.
However, the trial court and subsequently the sessions court dismissed the application. The case eventually went to the LHC, which upheld the earlier rulings and declined to order a joint trial, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.
Before the apex court, the petitioner’s lawyer argued that registration of two FIRs for the same incident violated legal principles laid down in previous judgments, including the well-known Sughran Bibi case, which discouraged the use of multiple FIRs for the same incident.
The lawyer also argued that provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 allow offenses arising from the same transaction to be tried together and warned that parallel trials could amount to double criminality and undermine the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial.
However, lawyers for the plaintiff and the State opposed this request, arguing that the alleged rape and the subsequent release of the video were separate acts with separate motives, falling under different statutory regimes and therefore requiring an independent proceeding.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court examined the legal concept of “same transaction”, noting that the term is not expressly defined in criminal procedure law and must be determined by courts based on factors such as continuity of action, commonality of purpose and causal link between events.
Applying these principles to the case, the court found that the two sets of allegations could be clearly separated. The bench observed that the first phase involved the physical commission of the alleged offence, while the second phase involved the dissemination of its recording through electronic means.
According to the court, the motivations behind these acts could also differ, with the initial offense possibly being motivated by sexual gratification and the subsequent dissemination aimed at humiliation, degradation or blackmail.
The court further held that the provisions allowing joint trials under the CrPC were discretionary rather than mandatory. The use of the word “may” in the relevant sections indicates that courts have the power to order a joint trial where appropriate, but are not obligated to merge proceedings simply because it is legally permissible.
The judgment also highlighted that the two cases were being tried under separate statutory regimes with separate investigative mechanisms, one involving special courts dealing with sexual offenses and the other relating to cybercrime investigations.
The consolidation of such procedures could lead to jurisdictional complications and disrupt the procedural structure already in place.
The bench noted that the trials had already progressed significantly and the prosecution evidence had been partially recorded. At such an advanced stage, the court observed, the consolidation of the proceedings would require a modification of the charges and a restructuring of the judicial process, which could compromise the continuity of the proceedings.
