ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the ultimate purpose of procedural law was to give voice to human suffering and not to silence it.
The observation came while setting aside rulings of lower courts in a criminal appeal moved by Nayab Umrani before the Supreme Court regarding the murder trial of her sister Sanam Umrani. Advocate Sanam Umrani, who used to fight for women’s rights, was killed on May 31, 2018, in Jacobabad, Sindh.
A two-member bench headed by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and comprising Justice Salahuddin Panwhar had taken up the criminal appeal in which the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court after her application to correct inaccuracies in her recorded testimony was dismissed by the trial court and the Sindh High Court (SHC).
The Supreme Court, however, ordered the trial court to carefully re-examine the video recording of the petitioner’s statement and compare it with her written statement available on the record, in the presence of the accused and counsel for the parties as well as the prosecutor.
Bench asks trial court to review petitioner’s statement, make corrections in case of any discrepancy
Upon such comparison, if any discrepancy, omission or inaccuracy is found in the petitioner’s written statement and cross-examination, the trial court will make its remarks by incorporating the correct version of the statement in a memorandum, as provided by section 360(2) of the CrPC, and make it part of the record.
Such exercise will be completed within a period of fifteen working days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the Supreme Court said. It added that the trial court, after providing an opportunity for re-arguments, should decide the case within a period of 30 days, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Petitioner Umrani is a prosecution witness in the 2018 murder case, which was registered in Jacobabad under sections 302, 109 and 449 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).
The trial of the case was pending before the first additional sessions judge, Hyderabad. With the permission of the trial court, the petitioner recorded her statement through a video link from Islamabad in the presence of a coordinate judge, while the trial court reduced her statement into writing at Hyderabad.
After recording her statement, the petitioner obtained a certified copy, wherein she noticed that her statement had not been recorded verbatim, as it contained certain inaccuracies, particularly with regard to the date of the incident, which was incorrectly recorded as May 30 instead of May 31, 2018.
Consequently, the petitioner filed an application under Section 360 before the trial court, but the same was dismissed. Her criminal revision petition before the Sindh High Court also met the same fate by means of the impugned judgement of March 1, 2024.
During the course of the hearing, the Supreme Court carefully examined the video statement of the petitioner, which was made available by the trial court and found certain discrepancies and inaccuracies in the testimony.
Justice Mandokhail said the procedure for recording evidence by the trial court mandates that where a witness completes his testimony, it should be read over to the witness in the presence of the accused or his counsel, and if necessary, be corrected.
Similarly, Section 360(2), on the other hand, enables a witness to object to the correctness of his/her statement, the judgement said. This provision also provides a procedure when a witness challenges the written record of the statement, mandating that the judge append a “memorandum” of the objection, setting out the judge’s own remarks regarding the objection, and recording the correct version.
The procedure serves a vital role in ensuring fairness in criminal trials and maintaining transparency in the recording of statements. Principally, the procedural framework under CrPC facilitates the observance of due process and the right to a fair trial, thereby securing fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution, the judgement said, adding that a judge must not adopt a purely technical approach that frustrates the ends of justice; rather, the procedure must be employed as an instrument to promote justice, as intended by the legislature.
Published in Dawn, July 10th, 2026