LHC orders retrial of attempted murder case

Declares accused cannot be deprived of cross-examination rights

LAHORE:

The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside the conviction of a man in an attempted murder case, ruling that an accused cannot be deemed to have waived his right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses because he failed to engage a private lawyer.

Justice Ghulam Sarwar Nahung held in an 11-page judgment that a conviction could not be sustained if the accused had been denied an effective opportunity to challenge the prosecution evidence.

The court emphasised that every accused was entitled to fair trial and proper legal representation under Article 10-A of the Constitution.

The judge observed that an accused could not be treated as having surrendered his right to cross-examination without first being informed of the legal consequences of doing so. He held that trial courts were responsible for informing accused persons, particularly those unable to afford legal representation, about their right to free legal assistance and ensuring that the relevant procedures were followed.

The court directed that the mechanism provided under the Punjab Legal Aid Act 2018 be adopted to ensure legal assistance for deserving accused persons.

It noted that neither the financial circumstances of the accused nor his eligibility for legal aid had been examined in the case. According to the judgment, the accused, Irfan alias Kala, was in jail during the trial, while statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded in the absence of his lawyer.

Despite the witnesses not being cross-examined on his behalf, the trial court proceeded to convict him.

Irfan had been sentenced to seven years in prison under Section 337-D of the Pakistan Penal Code and ordered to pay compensation to the injured person, Muhammad Ramzan.

His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by an additional sessions judge in Khanewal on June 25, 2024.

Allowing a criminal revision petition, the high court set aside the decisions of both the trial and the appellate courts and remanded the case for a fresh trial.

The trial court was directed to restart proceedings from the stage of recording prosecution evidence and provide the accused an effective opportunity to engage a lawyer of his choice and cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.