Witness testimony must be recorded verbatim, clarifys supreme court

ISLAMABAD, Jul 09 (APP): The Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan has ruled that trial courts are under a legal and constitutional obligation to record a witness’s testimony verbatim and promptly rectify any errors, observing that fair trial and transparent judicial proceedings require an accurate record of evidence.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Salahuddin Panhwar issued the detailed reasons for its short order in criminal petitions filed by Mst. Nayab, setting aside the orders of the trial court and the Sindh High Court Circuit Bench, Hyderabad.

The Court observed that procedural law was a means to achieve justice, not an obstacle to it, adding that its purpose was to give voice to human suffering rather than silence it.

According to the judgment, the petitioner was a prosecution witness in FIR No. 33/2018 registered at a police station in Jacobabad district. Her testimony had been recorded through a video link. However, after obtaining a certified copy of her statement, she discovered several material errors and inconsistencies, including the incorrect recording of the date of the incident as May 30, 2018 instead of May 31, 2018, along with discrepancies in the cross-examination and other portions of the statement.

The petitioner moved the trial court under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking correction of her statement, but the application was dismissed. A review petition before the Sindh High Court also failed, prompting her to approach the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, the apex court summoned the video recording of the witness’s testimony from the trial court and examined it in the presence of counsel for the parties and the Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh.

The Court found that while the witness had clearly stated in the video recording that the incident occurred on May 31, 2018, the written transcript incorrectly mentioned May 30, 2018. It also identified other material errors and inconsistencies in the recorded statement, which were acknowledged by counsel for the respondent.

The judgment held that under Section 360 (1) CrPC, once a witness’s testimony was completed, it must be read over to the witness and corrected wherever necessary. Under Section 360(2), a witness has the right to object if the statement has not been correctly recorded, and the court was legally bound to record such objection in a memorandum along with its opinion.

The Court emphasized that this statutory procedure was essential to ensuring a fair trial, preserving the integrity of evidence, and safeguarding the fundamental right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution. Failure by a trial court to exercise these powers, it observed, could undermine the evidentiary value of the testimony and adversely affect the merits of the case.

Holding that both the trial court and the High Court had failed to exercise their jurisdiction in accordance with the relevant provisions of the CrPC, the Supreme Court directed the trial court to compare the witness’s video-recorded testimony with the written transcript in the presence of the accused, the parties’ counsel, and the prosecutor.

If any discrepancy, omission, or error is found, the trial court has been directed to prepare a memorandum under Section 360(2) based on the correct testimony and make it part of the judicial record.

The Court further ordered that the exercise be completed within 15 working days of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. Thereafter, the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to advance fresh arguments, and the trial court shall decide the case in accordance with law within the following 30 working days.