2026 P Cr. L J 71

 2026 P Cr. L J 71

[Peshawar]

Before Ishtiaq Ibrahim, C.J

ISHAQ---Petitioner

Versus

The STATE and others---Respondents

Criminal Revision No. 311-P of 2023, decided on 13th May, 2024.

Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---

----Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 136 &

137---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---

Leading question---Scope---Prosecution question to the complainant

as to what was the reason in respect of delay in reporting the

matter had been expunged by the Court being leading question---

Validity---Record showed that complainant had categorically stated

that reason for delay in reporting the matter was non-availability of

vehicle and the area being mountainous---Perusal of examination-

in-chief of the complainant would reveal that he had categorically

deposed about the material facts of the incident such as the mode

and manner in which the occurrence had taken place and had

directly nominated the respondents-accused for commission of the

offence; however, he omitted to explain the delay in reporting the

occurrence---Said omission on the part of the complainant did not

seem to be deliberate rather was because of his ignorance about the

technicalities of the law---Besides, the question asked from

complainant did not relate to any material part of the incident---

Defence would be given full opportunity of cross-examining the

witness during which course he might be confronted with all the

questions the defence wished to put to him---Admittedly, decisions

about admissibility of the questions during examination of witness

were best left to the discretion of the Trial Court---Moreover, it is the

Trial Court which firsthand oversees the proceedings, demeanor of

the witness, his social and educational standings, context of the

question in dispute, and is therefore, best placed to decide them---No

settled rule as to admissibility of questions can be provided, as in

criminal cases, each case has unique and distinct set of facts---

However, Trial Courts are supposed to exercise the discretion

judiciously bearing in mind all precedential guidelines of Superior

Courts, and considering the significance of substantial justice over

and above procedural technicalities---Impugned order was set-aside,

in circumstances---Complainant was allowed to answer the question put to him by the Public Prosecutor---Petition was allowed, in

circumstances.

Varkay Joseph v. State of Kerala AIR 1993 SC 1892; Nicholas v. Dowding

(1815) 1 stark 81; Rao Humayun Waqas v. The State and others 2024

YLR 2546 and Muhammad Ramzan v. The State and others 2023 PCr.LJ

1156 rel.

Barrister Rokhan Nafees Shafi and Muhammad Nisar Khan for

Petitioner.

Muhammad Inam Khan Yousafzai, A.A.G for the State.

Majid Ali for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Syed Dawran Shah and Imdad Ullah Amici Curiae.

Date of hearing: 29th April, 2024.

ORDER

ISHTIAQ IBRAHIM, C.J.---Through this common Order, I propose to

decide the instant Criminal Revision petition, filed by Ishaq and a

connected Cr.R. No.13-P of 2024, filed by the State through Advocate

General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, the petitioners respectively,

as both are arising out of the same order dated 28.11.2023 ("Impugned

order"), passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mohmand ("Trial

Court"), whereby a question "What was the reason in respect of delay in

reporting the matter? Put to Ishaq Khan complainant (PW.2) in his

examination-in-chief by the Public Prosecutor, during trial in case FIR

No.19 dated 21.03.2023, registered under Sections 302, 324 and 34 P.P.C,

at Police Station Pindyalay Mohmand, has been held as a "leading

question" hence has been ordered expunged by the learned trial court.

2. Facts in brief forming the background of the instant revision

petitions are that case vide FIR No.19 dated 21.03.2023, under sections

302, 324 and 34 P.P.C, Police Station Pindyalay Mohmand was

registered against the accused/respondents on the report of

petitioner/complainant Ishaq.

3. After commencement of trial, on 15.11.2023, complainant Ishaq

Khan appeared in the witness box as PW.2. During the course of his

examination-in-chief, the learned Public Prosecutor put him a

question i.e. "What was the reason in respect of delay in reporting the

matter? Which was objected by learned defence counsel.

4. The learned trial court after hearing learned counsel for the

parties answered the objection of learned defence counsel vide order

dated 28.11.2023 in the following way: "As per Articles 136 and 137 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984,

learned State counsel/private counsel for complainant cannot

put leading question to the said PW.2. They are not permitted

and hence the question is expunged."

5. Feeling aggrieved, complainant and the State/petitioners, have

filed the instant criminal revision petitions seeking setting-aside of the

impugned order and permission of the court to allow the prosecution

to put the disputed question to complainant (PW.2).

6. On 25.03.2024 when the cases were taken for hearing, the court

found itself confronted with the following questions:

(i) What are the leading questions within the meaning of Article 136

of the Order, 1984?

(ii) When leading questions must not be asked? as contemplated in

Article 137 of the Order, 1984 and

(iv) Whether question put to the complainant (PW.2) is a leading

question or not?

Learned counsel for the parties were directed to assist the court on

the aforesaid legal points, whereas, Syed Dawran Shah and Imdad

Ullah, Advocates, were appointed as Amici Curiae.

7. Today, I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

parties and Amici Curiae on the points and perused the law on the

subject with their valuable assistance. The research work done by the

Amicus Curiae also perused.

8. Article 136 QSO defines leading questions i.e. any question

suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to

receive, is called a leading question. For ready reference Article 136 is

reproduced below:-

Art. 136. Leading questions:- Any question suggesting the answer

which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called

as leading question".

Perusal of Article 136 lays down a criterion, a touchstone, by which

the trial judge is required and expected to decide the admissibility of

every question, when objected to, in view of the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case and the witness. Article 137 QSO, prohibits

that leading question must not be asked, if objected by the adverse

party in the examination-in-chief and re-examination of a witness,

except with the permission of the court. Article 137 QSO reads as

under:

Art. 137. When leading questions must not be asked:- (1) Leading

questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party, be asked in an examination-in-chief, or in a re-examination, except with

the permission of the court.

(2) The Court shall permit leading question as to matters which are

introductory or undisputed, or which have, in its opinion, been

already sufficiently proved.

Under sub-Article (2) of Article 137 QSO, the court is empowered to

grant permission to ask leading question in the matter which are,

"introductory or undisputed or which in the opinion of the court, has

been already sufficient proved". The powers under Article 137(2) QSO,

are subjective in nature that the judge presiding over the trial is

supposed to exercise them in the peculiar circumstances of the case,

and with regard to the social/academic standing of the witness.

Needless to point out that such discretion is judicial, and is controlled

by objective principles of equity and fairness.

9 The definition of leading question has been explored in various

notable commentaries on the Law of Evidence and also in some case

precedents from foreign jurisdiction, relevant excerpts of which are

referred herein below. The definition of "Leading question" most

frequently used all over is that of Stephens in his Digest of Law of

Evidence, 12th Edition published in 1936, wherein he states that:

"A leading question is one which either:

(a) suggests the answer desired or

(b) assumes the existence of disputed facts as to which the witness is

to testify".

Another passage on the definition of a leading question is aptly put

by Edward Wilfrid Fordham in his book, "Notable Cross-Examination,

1st edition published in 1951" in the following way:-

"What is a leading question? What were you doing at 10 pm

yesterday? Has one not heard some such reply, as `Ah, That's a

leading question. Of course it is not a leading question, nor is it

an example of cross-examination. On the other hand, were you

in Trafalgar Square at 10 p.m. yesterday? Is a leading question

and one that in legal proceedings may be asked in cross-

examination."

Another definition widely used is given by Jean Duhamel and J.Dill

Smith in book, "Some Pillars of English Law 108-09 (Reginald Hall ed

and Trans. 1st English ed.1959), as under:

"A witness is first questioned by the party calling him. This is known

as examination-in-chief. Counsel conducting it may not, on any

point in dispute, ask leading questions that is to say, questions where the witness is lured into a position in which he can in the

end only answer yes or no. Thus it would not be correct to frame

a question: You did go to Edinburg on the 25th of last month, did

you not? The proper way of putting it is "where did you go on

the 25th of last month?

The object of the rule is, first, to prevent examining counsel from

suggesting in any way the answer he wants, and also to compel

an inattentive or lazy witness to give some thought to the

question asked".

Similarly, in case titled, "Varkav Joseph v. State of Kerala", (AIR 1993

SC 1892), "Leading question" has been defined as "a question which

indicates to the witness the fact which the prosecutor expects or

desires to have confirmed by the answer". S.L. Phipson in his book,

"Manual of the Law of Evidence, 3rd Edition published in 1921, defines

leading question as "questions which suggests the desired answer, or

which put the disputed matters to the witness in a form permitting of

the simple reply of 'yes' or `no'." Judge Fowler in case titled, "Page v.

Parker, 40 NH 63 (1881), described leading question as "a question

which puts into the mouth of the witness words which he can echo

back". Another interesting approach is the one taken by Lord Ellen

Borough, in case titled, "Nicholas v. Dowding" (1815) 1 stark 81,

wherein he has observed that

"A question would be objectionable as leading when it suggest the

answer, not when it merely directs the attention of the witness

to the subject, respecting which he is questioned. Suggesting the

answer and inviting the attention of the witness to the

topic/subject he should give evidence on, are clearly two

different things. For example, what was the motive? It is inviting

the attention of the witness to the subject/topic and is

permissible for the simplest of reasons that it is in no manner

suggesting the answer. On the other hand, was the motive

previous blood feud enmity? This question is clearly suggesting

the answer and hence would not be permissible.

Christopher Allen, in his book "Practical Guide to Evidence, 4th

Edition published in 2008, defines leading question as below:

"A leading question is one that suggests to the witness the answer

that is wanted... it is, of course, necessary to a certain extent to

lead the mind of the witness to the subject of the inquiry, but

this is permissible provided that answer is left open to the

witness. It is not always easy in practice to decide how far to go."

It is evident that there is a difference in suggesting the answer and

directing the witness's attention to the subject of inquiry. From practice point of view, there are different ways of understanding

whether a question is leading or not. These are general in nature and

do not apply in strict sense, as facts of every case are different from

other. A question that is deemed leading in one case may be deemed

non-leading in another. The general understanding is that a question

that starts with words what , who , where are usually not leading

questions. Similarly, questions that can be answered with a mere yes

or no are leading questions. Open ended questions are non-leading

usually whereas close ended questions are leading. These general

understanding do not apply to every case but are certainly helpful in

determining whether a question is leading or not.

10. At this juncture I would refer to certain exceptions from a book

namely, Law of evidence written by Chief Justice (Rtd) M. Monir 15th

edition published in 2010 where leading questions in certain

circumstances are relaxed by the Court,:-

"Leading questions may be asked as to introductory or undisputed

matters or sufficiently proved: In England, the discretion of

allowing or disallowing a leading question is exercised in favour

of allowing it when the question relates to an introductory or

undisputed matter. In India, such question may be asked by a

party as a matter of right and the court has no discretion to

disallow the same. When a witness is asked about matters

preliminary to the main topic of controversy matter essentials to

be brought out and yet not themselves and controversy such as

the witness name, age, residence, relationship to the parties and

the like there is usually no danger of improper suggestion and

therefore the rule disallowing question is relaxed in favour of

question relates to such matters. To abridge the proceedings,

and bring the witness as soon as possible on the material points

on which he is to speak, counsel may lead him on to that length,

and may recapitulate to him the acknowledge facts of the case

which has been already established.

Leading questions as to the identity of person or thing may be

allowed by the court:

For the purpose of identifying persons or things the attention of the

witness may be directly pointed to him. Thus, the witness may

be asked if the prisoner in the dock is the person he has referred

to. The proper question in such cases should however be: Do you

see the person referred to in Court? As identification prompted

by a leading question is often worthless.

Leading question may be allowed to be asked of a witness to

contradict another witness as to expression used by the latter: Where one witness is called to contradict another as to

expression used by the latter, the former may be asked not

merely what was said but whether the particular expression

were used since otherwise a contradiction might never be

arrived at. Whether however the conversation is not proved

merely for the purpose of contradiction, the leading question is

improper. When a witness is called to contradict another

respecting the contents of a lost letter, and cannot, off hand

recollect all its contents the particular passage may be suggested

to him, at least after his unaided memory has been exhausted.

Leading question may be allowed to assist the memory of the

witness:- Where the witness is unable without extraneous aid to

revive is memory on the desired point i.e. whether he

understands what he is desired to speak about, cannot recollect

what he knows, his recollection, being exhausted, may be aided

by a question suggesting the answer. Thus where a witness

stated that he could not recollected the names of the members of

a firm so as to repeat them without suggestion, but thought that

he might possibly recognize them if suggested this was

permitted to be done. Similarly, to prove a slander imputing

that: A was a bankrupt whose name was in the bankruptcy list

and would appear in the next Gazette, a witness who had only

proved the first two statements was allowed to be asked: Was

anything said about the Gazette where from the nature of the

case, the mind of the witness cannot be directed to the subject of

inquiry without a particular specification of it, as, where he is

called to contradict another respecting the contents of a lost

letter and cannot off-hand, recollect all its contents, the

particular passage may be suggested to him at least after his

unaided memory has been exhausted.

The Rule forbidding leading Question in certain circumstances be

relaxed where the witness is wanting in understanding i.e.

where the witness is a child, invalid or perhaps illiterate:- Where

the witness is a child or an illiterate or an adult, does not

appreciate the tenor of the desired details, and is, therefore,

unable to say anything about it, question calling attention

specifically to the details may be allow-able when other means

have failed. It is, however, submitted that in India, where the

majority of witnesses are illiterate the rule forbidding leading

question will hardly be relaxed on the mere ground that the

witness is illiterate. Where the witness is too ill or feeble or

speech to be able to articulate sentences, the sentence may be

framed for him suggestively, leaving him as little as possible to rticulate in yet avoiding the danger or misunderstood signal of

assent or dissent.

Leading question may be put to a witness where witness appears to

be hostile to the party calling him or interested for other party

or unwilling to give evidence:- The court may, in its discretion

permit the party calling a witness to put any question to him

which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party

and since a party is entitled to put leading question in the cross-

examination of a witness. It follows that a witness may, in

certain cases, be asked leading questions by the party calling

him. Leading questions are generally allowed to be put to a

witness who, by his conduct in the witness box obviously

appears to be hostile to the party calling him, or interested for

the other party, or un-willing to give evidence, or whose special

circumstances render him rather the witness of the court than of

the party. A party, though called by his opponent, cannot as of

right be treated as hostile, so as to entitle the party calling him to

put leading question to him, as Article 150 QSO manifests."

The exceptions referred above speak about wide discretion in the

court to decide whether a question is leading or otherwise.

11. I would also like to refer to the view point of the worthy Lahore

High Court, Lahore, on the subject under discussion in a recent

judgment dated 18.04.2024, rendered in 2024 YLR 2546, titled, "Rao

Humayun Waqas v. The State etc". In case (supra), complainant,

namely, Mushtaq Ahmad PW-2 in his examination in chief narrated

the following story;

"Stated that the occurrence took place at Shah Noor when the sun

was about to set. My son was present in his shop. The polling

was on as it was election day. My son received injury and he fell

down. The persons scattered from the place of occurrence. The

dispute was about the maid. The injured was shifted to hospital

and he succumbed to the injuries. He received number of fire

arms shots. The postmortem examination was conducted upon

the deceased and we received the dead body of deceased and

buried him."

The worthy Lahore High Court, Lahore, in the judgment (supra),

held that such statement clearly shows that neither the complainant

has mentioned the date and time of occurrence nor nominated any

accused. Name of deceased was also not spoken, nor was any role

assigned to any one for committing murder. The deviancy from

requirement of stating particulars of charge against the appellant was

also not attempted to be justified. Such edition of statement in no case helps the prosecution to substantiate the charges against the appellant.

In response of observations of the worthy High Court, the learned

Additional Prosecutor General stated that complainant was in advance

age as being of 95 years, could not recollect the facts after such a long

time, therefore, not mentioning the name of accused and other

particulars is not fatal to the prosecution story. While dealing with the

above situation, the august Lahore High Court, Lahore in paragraphs

Nos.8 to 13 observed the following:

"8. It is observed that examination in chief of a witness is to be

conducted by the Public Prosecutor who is required to follow the

pattern suggested as per international best practices so as to

facilitate and assist the witness to recollect the facts. The 17th

edition of a book titled "ADVOCACY" edited by Robert McPeake

printed by Oxford University Press explains that "examination

in chief is the process of eliciting evidence from your own

witness and is the first opportunity when the court has to assess

the witness. A strong impression made at that stage will give the

witness credibility and may withstand any attack in cross-

examination". The aims of conducting examination in chief is

usually three fold;

(a) to establish your case or part of it through the evidence elicited

from the witness;

(b) to present the evidence so that it is clear, memorable and

persuasive;

(c) to insulate the evidence, insofar as possible, from anticipated

attack in cross-examination

To achieve such aim next step is the preparation which involves;

(i) selecting the order of witnesses;

(ii) selecting the order of evidence to be elicited from each witness.

It is preferable to start and finish your case with a witness who

makes a strong impression. Avoid calling your first witness

whose evidence is particularly vulnerable to cross-examination

and select which part of his evidence is to be elicited first.

9. Though prosecutor is not authorized to ask the leading question

in examination in chief which is explained in Article 136 of the

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 as "any question suggesting the

answer which the person putting in wishes or expects to receive

is called a leading question"; however, it is subject to some

conditionalities as mentioned in Article-137 as under; (1) Leading questions must not, if objected to by the adverse party,

be asked in an examination-in-chief or in a reexamination,

except with the permission of the Court.

(2) The Court shall permit leading questions as to matters which are

introductory or undisputed, or which have in its opinion, been

already sufficiently proved.

First condition is objection of opposite party, if no objection is

raised, leading questions can well be asked, whereas on the

objection of opposite party, still there is a space to ask leading

questions if the Court permits. Court has been guided through

the same provision to grant permission if the question relates to

matters which are introductory or undisputed or which in the

opinion of Court have already been sufficiently proved.

10. Usually to avoid leading questions, prosecutors while conducting

examination in chief can use technique of five Ws, which means

formulating of interrogatories with "when, where, what, who,

why" and for seeking wide expression can ask the witness 'to

describe/explain' the fact he stated. The words may not be put

into the mouth of witness rather question must be framed in a

sequence as to extract the story of witness in his own words.

Prosecutor is not bound to conduct the examination in chief of

witness in a sequence of facts as mentioned in statements of

witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C rather it should be

rearranged to create an impact by abandoning the unnecessary

details. KEITH EVANS in his book "ADVOCACY IN COURT" (A

Beginner's guide) summarized the task as follows;

It is done by bearing in the mind the 'one line of transcript' rule,

breaking the thing down into the shortest questions eliciting the

shortest answers, and by analyzing out as you go along what

building bricks you in fact require in order to erect the structure

of evidence that you want from this witness. Broken down into

the smallest pieces, every story, just about, can be drawn out of a

witness without leading questions being used. But you often do

have to break the narrative down very finely.

11. Preparation of witnesses is an essential task for the prosecution

and it usually depends upon the status of witness as ordinary or

expert, and with further segregation as child, vulnerable, infirm,

incapacitated like deaf or dumb or old aged. Every sort is to be

attend accordingly and prosecutor, before presenting the

witness in the court, must have a meeting in order to apprise

him about the Court science, like appearance style, court

decorum, manners and attitude in response to questions asked by the prosecutor, defence counsel and the Court. There are

many techniques to follow for conducting examination in chief

of a witness. The main two techniques were discussed by this

Court in a case reported as "Muhammad Ramzan v. The State

and others" (2023 PCr.LJ 1156) as under;

"During examination-in-chief two out of many techniques are most

popular to be allowed to follow by the prosecution i.e. (i)

signposting, and (ii) piggybacking. Signposting in fact is an

indicator to alert the witness to a particular part of his

testimony e.g., telling the witness that now some questions

would be asked about his status/work or questions about his

relation with other witnesses and so on; this bit-by-bit

examination helps the witness to recollect the facts clearly and it

is permissible as per international best practices. Piggybacking

is a form of question arranged with the part of answer given by

the witness while using it as prefix to next question, e.g., if a

witness replied that accused made a fire shot which hit the

deceased; then by using technique of piggybacking, next

question can be framed like; "when the fire hit the deceased,

how did he react or what happened to him". This technique also

helps to produce a conjunction in or symmetry to evidence. It is

the domain of the court to control question which a party wants

to ask as per Article 143 of QSO, 1984; therefore, court should

remain vigilant while attending such questions and decide its

relevancy or admissibility then and there; if a question is asked

without reasonable ground, then court can take proper action as

required under Articles 144, 145 and 146 of QSO, 1984.

12. Apart from technique of signposting and piggybacking for

conducting examination in chief of a witness, there are in place

certain other suitable and practiced rules in every nook and

corner of the world in the Courts. In terms of 'Form of

questions', guidelines are as under;

(i) Do not lead (ii) Avoid wide question and ask

focused/specific/targeted questions (iii) Avoid long question and

ask short, simple questions (iv) Avoid compound questions and

ask one question at a time (v) one point at a time (vi) Have a

dialogue and ensure the questions follow on (vii) establish facts

not conclusions (viii) Avoid comment, build to a point.

For sequence or structure of questions, following rules are followed:

(i) Help the witness to tell the story (ii) paint a picture (iii)Help the

Court to follow (iv) use the exhibits and photos (v) use of plans

(vi) avoid irrelevancies (vii) listen to the answers (viii) avoid quick fire questions (ix) avoid interrupting (x) use piggybacking

as cited above.

To have a control on the witness, techniques are as follows;

(i) Ask precise question (ii) know your material (iii) demonstrate

clear direction (iv) know where you are going (v) plan transition

or alternate questions."

13. In the present case, prosecution has not attempted to elicit the

necessary facts from the mouth of complainant by using any of

above techniques, therefore, prosecution case is bereft of

material necessary to substantiate the charge".

12. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the question put to

complainant Ishaq (PW.2), by the Public Prosecutor in his

examination in-chief is "What was the reason in respect of delay in

reporting the matter? which was objected to by learned defence

counsel on the ground that the same is a leading question and finally

expunged by the learned trial court through the impugned order. It

may be noted that the impugned order omits to supply reasons for its

conclusion as it simply says that question put to leading one within

the meaning of Articles 136 and 137 QSO, 1984. A leading question, as

defined by law, is 'any question suggesting the answer which the

person putting it wishes or expects to receive'. The QSO, 1984 is an

adjective law. It is a compendium of rules of procedure/practices,

according to which the Court is to record evidence. It prescribes rules

and methods with regard to recording of evidence of parties. It

applies to all judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. All technicalities

should be avoided, and calls for doing substantial justice between the

parties, ought to be heeded. The rules of evidence are formulated to

advance the interest of justice and adhering to a universal scheme of

procedure in all cases. The object of the rules of evidence, obviously,

is to find out the truth out of the jumble of controversies raised by

the parties. The rules of evidence for civil and criminal cases are, in

general, identical but some provisions of the QSO are peculiar to

criminal cases and other peculiar to civil cases. In civil case mere

preponderance of evidence is a sufficient basis for decision while in a

criminal case, pursuance of guilt, must amount to such a moral

certainty as convinces the mind of the court beyond all reasonable

doubts. Though this court may not agree with the tenor and language

of the question being objectionable, but still it is a matter of record,

the issue with which the witness has been confronted is mentioned in

the FIR. Besides, undeniably, the case and witness/complainant (PW.2)

both belong to District Mohmand, the erstwhile FATA and now

merged in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa after Constitution (Twenty-fifth

Amendment) Act, 2018. Naturally, the present judicial system is new for the locals of the said merged district; therefore, witnesses

appearing in the courts cannot be expected to be well conversant

with subtleties and technicalities of adjective law; therefore, a

witness of such merged district deserves all lawful assistance during

his testimony to ensure that all truth is elicited from him in aid of

justice. The yardstick which is to be applied to an expert witness i.e. a

witness usually appearing in the court like police and Medical

Officers during their examination, cannot be applied to a witness of

the erstwhile FATA, that too, when he is a rustic villager. The learned

trial court is best placed to assess the socio-cultural attributes of a

witness in the stand, and accordingly, should, as far as law permits,

relax his strictness vis- -vis leading questions etc in such like

situation. The witness, as explained above, clearly cannot be equated

with an expert witness appearing in the court in routine like Police

witnesses or doctors etc. Despite the court potentially disagreeing

with the linguistic/textual form of the controversial question, it

acknowledges that there is categorical mention of delay in the First

Information Report (FIR) where, complainant has categorically stated

that reason for delay in reporting the matter was because of non-

availability of vehicle and the area being mountainous. Perusal of

examination-in-chief of the complainant would reveal that he has

categorically deposed about the material facts of the incident as such

the mode and manner in which the occurrence has taken place and

has directly nominated the respondents-accused for commission of

the offence; however, he omitted to explain the delay in reporting the

occurrence. The omission on the part of the complainant does not

seem to be deliberate rather because of his ignorance about the

technicalities of the law. Besides, the question asked from him, does

not relate to any material part of the incident. The defence will be

given full opportunity of cross-examining the witness during which

course he may be confronted with all the questions the defence wish

to put him. Admittedly, decisions about admissibility of the questions

during examination of witness are best left to the discretion of the

trial judge. It is he who firsthand oversees the proceedings, demeanor

of the witness, his social and educational standings, context of the

question in dispute, and is therefore, best placed to decide them. No

settled rule as to admissibility of questions can be provided, as in

criminal cases, each case has unique and distinct set of facts.

However, trial courts are supposed to exercise the discretion

judiciously bearing in mind all precedential guidelines of superior

courts, and considering the significance of substantial justice over

and above procedural technicalities.

13. In view of the discussion above, this and the connected criminal

revision petition are allowed. Consequently, impugned order of the learned trial court is hereby set-aside. Complainant (PW.2) is allowed

to answer the question put to him by the Public Prosecutor.

14. Before parting with the order, I deem it necessary to mention

here that observations in this order are only to the extent of the

impugned order, therefore, shall have no bearing on fate of the case,

which shall be decided by the learned trial court, after conclusion of

trial, in light of the available evidence of the parties, in accordance

with law, without being prejudice by this order.

15. The Additional Registrar (Judicial), shall sent copy of this

judgment to the District and Sessions Judges of each District, who shall

further circulate its copy amongst the Judicial Officers in his/her

relevant District for guidance.

JK/123/P Petition allowed.