I

v rN,rHE PE$IIAY*A&HIGH CqUm.

PESHAIVAR.
Uudicial Depart"mpntl

er8. No.311-P/2023

Ishaq s/o Mohabbat Khan,

r/o Yakh Dhand Tumanzai,
District, Mohmand.
Petitioner (s)
VERSUS

The State etc

Respondent (s)

For Petitioner (s) :- Barrister Rokhan Nafees Shafi and

Mr. Muhammad Nisar Khan.
Advocate.

For State Mr. Muhammad Inam Khan

Yousafzai.AAG

Mr. Majid Ali. Advocate for

respondents No.2 and 3.

Syed Dawran Shah and Imdad Ullah.

Advocates, Amicus Curiae.

Date of hearing: 29.04.2024.

Date of announcement:

ORDER

ISHTIAO IBRAHIM. CJ.- 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

29, 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

 2

Khan complainant (PW.2) in his examination-in-chief by

!
the Public Prosecutor, during trial in case FIR No.l9

dated 21.03.2023, registered under Sections 302,324 and

34 PPC, 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.l9

dated 21.03.2023, under sections 302,324 and 34 PPC,

Police Station Pindyalay Mohmand was registered

against the accused/respondents on the report of

petitioner/complainant Ishaq.

3. After corrmencement of trial, on 15.1I .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. 6'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 f36 & 137 of the Qanun-e-

Shahadat Order, 1984, learned State

counsel/private counsel for complainant

cannot put leading question to the said PW.2.

 3

v They are not permitted and hence the

question is expunged.r,

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:

O lVhat are the leading questions within the

meaning of Article 136 of the Order,
1984?
(ir) lVhen leading questions must not be

asked? as contemplated in Arlicle 137 of

the Order,1984 and
(iu) 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 Shan and Imdad Ullah, Advocates, were

appointed as Amicus Curiae

7. Today, I have heard the arguments of learned

counsel for the parties and Amicus 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.
 4

v 8. Anicle 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 Articles 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. Anicle 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, otccert *ith 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, ifobjected 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 leadine
auestion as to matters which are
introductorv or undisouled, or which
have, in its ooinion, been alreadv
sufficientlv oroved.
 5

Under sub-Article (2) of Article 137 eSO, 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 courl, has been already

sufficienl 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 Dieest

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 testiff".

Another passage on the definition of a leading question is

aptly put by Edward Wilfrid Fordham in his book

"Notable Cross- 1't edition nublished in

1951" in the following way:-

 6

"What is a leading question? What were you

\i
doing at l0 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 l0 p.m. yesterdaf Is a

leading question and one that in legal

proceedings may be asked in cross-

examination."

Another definition widely used is given by Jean

Duh & J.DiII in boo k, *Some of
Enelish Law 108-09 (Reeinald Hall ed and Trans. I't
Enelish 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 25fi of last month, did you

not? The proper way of putting it is "where

did you go on the 25n 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

 5.-

an inaffentive or lazy witness to give some

V
thought to the question asked".

Similarly, in case titled, ttVar Josenh vs of

Kerala". (AIR 1993 SC 1892). "Leading question,' has

been defined as "a question which indicates to the

wifiress the fact which the prosecutor expects or desires

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

book, t(Manual of the Law of Evidence- 3'd 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'." Judee

Fowler in case titled. " vs Parker. 40 NH 63

(1!!gl), 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

vs Dowdins" (18151 I 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 ofr, are clearly two

dffirent things. For example, what was the

 8

v motive? It is inviting the qttention 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.

Christonher Allen. in his book (6Practical 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

 9

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 question. 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 hv Chief

Justice Rtil M.Monir 1lh edition published in 2010

where leading questions in certain circumstances are

rela<ed by the Court,:-

"Leadins questions may be asked as to

introductory or undisnuted matters or
sufficientlv 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 maffer 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
 l0

may recapitulate to him the acknowledge facts of

w
the case which has been already established.

Leadine questions as to the identitv of nerson or

thine mav be allowed bv 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.

Leadine question mav be allowed to be asked of

a witness to contradict another witness as to
expression used bv 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.

Leadins question mav be allowed to assist the

memorv 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
 ll

v 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 anyhing 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
ofa 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 forbiddins leadins question in certain

circumstances be relaxed where the witness is
wantinq in understandine 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 ofthe 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 articulate in yet avoiding the danger

or misunderstood signal of assent or dissent.

Leading question mav be put to a witness where

witness annears to be hostile to the partv calline
him or interested for other nartv or unwilline to
sive 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-
 t2

v 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 Cr.A. No.10549 of 2021. titled. '(Rao

Humavun Waoas vs 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
 l3

v 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

parasrsphs No.8 to 13 observed the following:-

"8. It is observed that examinotion in chief of a

witness is to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor who

,s required to follow the pattern suggested as per

international best practices so as to facilitate and assist

the witness to recollect the facts. The ITth edition of a

book titled "ADI/OCACY" edited by Robert McPeake

 t4

v printed by Oxford lJniversity Press explains that

"examination in chief is the process of eliciting evidence

fro* your own witness and is the first opportunity when

the court has to asses^r 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-

lold;
(a) to establish your case or port ofit through
the evidence elicitedfrom 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 w itness.

It is preferable to start and finish your case with a

witness who makes a strong impression. Avoid calling

your "/irst witness whose evidence is particularly

vulnerable to cross examination and select which part of

his evidence is to be elicitedfirst.

9. Though prosecutor is not authorized to ask the

leading question in examination in chief which is

explained in Arttcle 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

 15

V leading question",. however, it is subject to some

conditionalities as mentioned in Article-t 37 as under;

(l) Leading questions must not, if objected

to by the adverse party, be aslred in an
examination-in-chief or in o
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 stfficiently
proved.

First condition is objection of opposite party, ,f ,o

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 sfficiently 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 "wlten, 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

 t6

examinatton in chief of witness in a sequence of facts as

mentioned in statements of witnesses recorded under

section 16I Cr.PC rather it should be rearranged to

create an impact by abandoning the unnecessdry details.

KEITH EI/ANS in his book "ADVOCACY IN CO(JRT,,

(A Beginner's guide) summarized the task asfollows;

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
veryfinely.

I L Preparation of witne.rses ,.r 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 RAI/ZAN Versus The

STATE and others" (2023 P Cr. L J 11 56) as under;

 l7

"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) piggbacking.
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 helpsthe witness to
recollect the facts clearly and it rb
permissible qs per international best
practices. Piggbacking is
ct .form of
question arranged with the part of answer
given by the witness while using it as preJix
to next question, e.9., tf a witness replied
that accused made a fire shot which hit the
deceased; then by using technique of
piggtbacking, next question can be framed
lilre; "when the tire 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
aslred without reasonable ground, then court

can take proper action as required under

Articles 144, 145 and 146 of QSO, 1984.
12, Apart .fro* techntque of signposting and

piggybacking for conducting examination in chief of a

witness, there are in place certqin other suilable and

practiced rules in every nook and corner of the world in

 l8

v 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 qnd ask short, simple
questions (iv) Avoid compound questions
and ask one question at a time (v) one point
at a time (vi) Hne a dialogue and ensure
the questions follow on (vii) establish facts
not conclusions (viii) Avoid commen4 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
onswers (viii) avoid quick
fire questions (ix)
avoid interrupting (x) use piggbacking as
cited above.
To have a control on the witness, techniques are as

follows;

(il Ask precise question (ii) lotow

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 ,fro* the mouth of

complainant by using any of above techniques, therefore,

prosecution cose ,'s bereft of material necessary to

substantiate the charge ".

L2. 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

I
 t9

was the reason in respect of delay in reporting the

v'
matter? which was objected to by learned defence

counsel on the ground that the same is a leading question

and finally expunged by the leamed 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
 20

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-d-vis leading questions

 2t

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
 22

is he who firsthand oversees the proceedings, demeanor

\6

of the witness, his social and educational standings,

context of the question in dispute, ffid 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 axe 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.

t4, 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 & Sessions Judges of
 T::

23

each District, who shall further circulate its copy amongst

the Judicial Officers in hislher relevant District for

guidance.

Announced:
Iffi:rr.
M.ShoJ AJrldl CS

SB: