09/03/2026
سپریم کورٹ نے تمام ماتحت عدالتوں کو حکم صادر کیا ہے گواہ کا کھڑے ہوکر شہادت دینا قانون کا تقاضا نہ ہے۔ اور ساتھ ہی ہدایات جاری کی ہیں کہ بوقت شہادت گواہان کے بیٹھنے کیلئے عدالت میں کرسیوں، سیٹوں یا بنچوں کا مناسب بندوبست کیا جائے۔
Accordingly all District and Sessions Judges as well as courts subordinate to them, Administrative Judges of Special Courts and Tribunals in Pakistan, are directed to ensure that appropriate seating arrangements are mandatorily provided to the person in witness box, whether in the form of a chair, seat, or bench. Allowing a witness to remain seated while giving evidence remains consistent with the constitutional guarantees of human dignity and the right to a fair trial.
Section 233, Cr.P.C. lays down the general rule that every distinct offence must be tried separately, but this rule is subject to exceptions provided in Sections 234, 235, 236, and 239, Cr.P.C., and must be read in conjunction with them. Section 235 permits a single accused to be charged and tried in one trial for multiple offences if they arise from a series of acts forming the “same transaction,” (naeem)including situations where acts fall under multiple legal definitions or where several acts combine to constitute a different offence. Section 239 extends this principle to joint trials of multiple accused who commit different offences in the course of the same transaction. While Section 235 applies to a single accused committing multiple offences in a connected series of acts, Section 239 particularly clause (d) has a broader scope and allows joint trial of several accused involved in offences committed during the same transaction.
On shedding light on the statutory scheme, Section 233, Cr.P.C. lays down the general rule that for every distinct offence there shall be a separate charge and every such charge shall be tried separately, except in cases falling within Sections 234, 235, 236 and 239, Cr.P.C. Sections 235 and 239 provide enabling exceptions where offences forming part of the “same transaction” may be tried together. Significantly, the legislature has used the expression “may be charged and tried at one trial” in Section 235, and similarly permissive language in Section 239. The use of the word “may” unmistakably render these provisions discretionary rather than mandatory. They confer jurisdiction upon the Court to order a joint trial where circumstances so warrant, but they do not create an obligation to amalgamate proceedings merely because such joinder is legally possible. Additionally, Section 16(4) of the Anti-Rape (Investigation & Trial) Act, 2021 provides that a Special(naeem) Court “may also try” offences not listed in the Schedules if committed in connection with scheduled offences. Here again, the legislature has consciously employed the expression “may”, thereby vesting discretion in the Trial Court. It will be a fallacy, if this court conclusively determines that a trial ought to be joint or not, since it is sole prerogative of the trial court as per law. Even otherwise, in view of Article 175(2) of the Constitution, it may be prudent to avoid any impression of jurisdictional enlargement beyond what is expressly conferred by law.
Where the legislature has created separate court structures for distinct categories of offences, consolidation across regimes may raise the question whether the trial court is being required to assume jurisdiction not clearly conferred by the relevant statute. The two enactments are special statutes with distinct investigative and trial mechanism. The ARA creates Special Courts for scheduled offences and provides its own procedural regime. Section 9 of ARA, states that the investigation in respect of the scheduled offences, “Special Sexual Offences Investigation Units” shall investigate these offences, whereas Section 30 of PECA, requires the investigation in PECA offences to be conducted by investigation agency, which is (naeem)notified as National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) under Section 29 of PECA. In this statutory setting, section 16(4) of the ARA is an enabling provision, which empowers a Special Court to try offences not listed in the schedules if committed in connection with scheduled offences, and it may be read narrowly so as not to displace the forum and procedure contemplated by PECA.
Before parting with this order, we are necessitated to discuss another issue highlighted during the proceedings; this court was informed that there is a significant delay in the conclusion of the trial, despite the direction of this court to conclude expeditiously. It was also informed that, the complainant is being subject to inordinately lengthy cross-examinations which are even continued for days, and separate counsel for each accused is cross-examining the complainant, whilst repeating the same questions. There is no cavil of proposition regarding the existence of right of the accused persons to cross examine the complainant, but during such, the judge shall sit as cautious as justice itself requires, to balance the right of cross-examination, with the right of fair trial and dignity enshrined in Article 10-A and 14 of the Constitution, respectively. The Judge shall not permit questions which are irrelevant, indecent and are asked without reasonable grounds or are intended to insult or annoy the person standing in the witness box. The sole purpose of cross-examination, is to assist the Court in bringing the truth to light by either disclosing or clarifying matters which witnesses may wish to conceal or confuse the Judge for whatsoever reasons. It is however, a regrettable practice to use the tool of prolonged crossexamination for the purpose of leading the witness into some error by exhausting him through unnecessary and irrelevant questioning. This depicts a misuse of the right of cross-examination. In such a situation, the presiding officer of the Court, i.e. the Judge, should not remain a silent spectator but should act as a vigilant supervisor, as the right of cross-examination is neither unlimited nor unbridled. When the judge observes that the right of cross-examination is being abused by asking questions which are irrelevant and intended to prolong the cross-examination with the object of manipulating error, or to scandalize, insult or annoy the witness, he should intervene and disallow such questions. The silence of the trial judge on allowing the above said, will defeat the spirit of the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, in regard to mode of examination; to be specific, Articles 131 and 143 to 148.
We note with concern that during trials, particularly at the stage of examination and cross-examination, witnesses are often required to remain standing in the witness box for prolonged periods, sometimes extending to several hours regardless of age, gender and physical health of the person. There is no legal requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that a witness must remain standing while giving evidence. The continuation of such a practice serves no legitimate purpose in the administration of justice and is inconsistent with the dignity owed to every individual appearing before a court of law. The administration of criminal justice must be safe, humane, and consistent with constitutional guarantees. Compelling a witness, specially in cases related to sexual offences to remain standing for extended durations while giving testimony places an unnecessary physical and psychological burden upon the individual and may impair the clarity and composure with which evidence is delivered. Allowing a witness to remain seated while deposing does not diminish the sanctity of the oath or the dignity of judicial proceedings. On the contrary, it promotes fairness, composure, and the orderly administration of justice, particularly in cases involving prolonged cross-examination or witnesses who may be vulnerable, elderly, infirm, or otherwise under stress. The State bears a constitutional obligation to ensure that complainants and witnesses are provided a safe and reasonable environment within the courtroom. The protection of witnesses and complainants in Pakistan is firmly grounded in the constitutional framework of fundamental rights, particularly Articles 9 and 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which guarantee the security of person and the right to a fair trial and due process. These guarantees are further strengthened by the principle of human dignity embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. Together, these provisions impose a duty upon the State to ensure that witnesses and victims are protected from intimidation, coercion, humiliation, or undue hardship so that testimony may be rendered freely and judicial proceedings conducted in accordance with law.
The statutory framework further reflects this constitutional commitment. The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act, 2017 at the federal level, together with corresponding provincial enactments, namely the Sindh Witness Protection Act, 2013, the Balochistan Witness Protection Act, 2016, the Punjab Witness Protection Act, 2018, and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Witness Protection Act, 2021, provide mechanisms for the protection of witnesses, including anonymity, relocation, security arrangements, and testimony through video-link. These legislative measures reinforce the guarantees of a fair trial and seek to ensure that vulnerable witnesses, including women and minors, may depose without fear or unnecessary hardship.
A court of law is not merely a chamber where disputes are resolved; it is a place where the majesty of the law must walk hand in hand with the dignity of the individual. Every person who enters its precincts, whether as a litigant, an accused, a complainant, or a witness, comes under the protection of the Constitution. A witness who steps into the witness box does so not as a servant of the court, but as a citizen assisting the administration of justice. The law requires such a person to speak the truth; it does not require that truth to be extracted through needless physical strain. Justice does not demand endurance; it demands truth. And truth is best spoken where the witness is afforded composure, security, and respect. A courtroom must therefore remain a place where justice is administered not only with authority but with humanity.
"Copied from the Page SYED NAEEM ALI Advocate"
Accordingly all District and Sessions Judges as well as courts subordinate to them, Administrative Judges of Special Courts and Tribunals in Pakistan, are directed to ensure that appropriate seating arrangements are mandatorily provided to the person in witness box, whether in the form of a chair, seat, or bench. Allowing a witness to remain seated while giving evidence remains consistent with the constitutional guarantees of human dignity and the right to a fair trial.
The Registrar of this Court is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Honourable Chief Justices of all High Courts in Pakistan for the purpose of ensuring its circulation, implementation, and compliance in all courts where evidence is recorded, including civil courts, criminal courts, special courts, and tribunals operating under federal or provincial laws. The Honourable Chief Justices shall ensure that appropriate administrative directions are issued so that the requirement of providing seating arrangements for witnesses in the witness box is implemented and observed across all subordinate courts and judicial forums within their respective jurisdictions.
Cr. PLA. 1160/2025
Maham Fatima VERSUS The State and another
Announced in open Court on 6th March, 2026
