ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Misc.A.No.S-299 of 2023

(Sanaullah Jalbani Vs. The State & another)

 

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

 

 

For the hearing of the main case.

 

22.07.2024

 

Mr. Ali Nawaz Khan Depar, Advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Shafquat Ali Jatoi, Advocate for private respondent.

Mr. Shewak Rathore, D.P.G for the State

                                                 -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

 

                        The facts in brief necessary for the disposal of instant Crl.Misc.Application are that an FIR was lodged by the applicant with P.S Nasirabad, alleging the abduction of his niece Mst.Shamsunisa by the culprits involved in the incident to subject her to rape. On investigation, the said abductee was recovered, and her 164 Cr.PC statement was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad; later on the applicant by making an application sought a re-recording of her 164 Cr.PC statement;   it was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Nasirabad, vide order dated 03.08.2023; it was impugned by the applicant by making a revision application; it too was dismissed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Qamber, vide order dated 17.08.2023; it was impugned by the applicant before this Court by way of instant Crl.Misc.Application u/s.561-A Cr.PC.

 

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that 164 Cr.PC statement of the said abductee was recorded under duress, therefore, it needs to be recorded to meet with the ends of justice, which is opposed by learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by contending that the very case is ripe for evidence.

 

                        Heard arguments and perused the record.

 

                        Re-recording of 164 Cr.PC statement of the said abductee amounts to re-investigation of the case; which is found ripe for evidence before learned trial Court; if such exercise is undertaken then it would give no end to the investigation of criminal cases. In these circumstances, learned Revisional Court was right to decline re-recording of 164 Cr.PC statement of the said abductee by way of the impugned order which is not found illegal to be interfered with by this Court.

 

                        Consequent to above discussion, the instant Crl.Misc.Application is dismissed accordingly.

 

                                                                                                            JUDGE