Mst. Nayab v. The State through P.G. Sindh and others

Case summary

The judgment in brief

In Mst. Nayab v. The State, the Supreme Court held that courts must address material differences between video-recorded testimony and the written deposition. The ruling connects Section 360 Cr.P.C. with Article 10-A and explains how the record should be corrected through a judicial memorandum.

Question of law

The legal question

What must a trial court do when a witness shows that the written deposition does not accurately reproduce testimony preserved in a video recording?

Holding

What the Court decided

The Trial Court must judicially address the witness's objection under Section 360(2) Cr.P.C. It must compare the video with the written examination and cross-examination in the presence of the parties and prosecutor, and record every discrepancy, omission or inaccuracy, together with the correct version, in a memorandum forming part of the record. A refusal to exercise this jurisdiction may impair the evidentiary record and the right to a fair trial.

Result

Outcome and directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Sindh High Court. It directed comparison and correction within fifteen working days, followed by re-arguments and a decision of the criminal case within a further thirty working days. The reasons were approved for reporting.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Trial Court and the Sindh High Court. It directed comparison and correction within fifteen working days, followed by re-arguments and a decision of the criminal case within a further thirty working days. The reasons were approved for reporting.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.