PLD 1949

P L D 1949 Privy Council 128 (PLP)

MAMA KHABANE BOSHOANE PEETE and others-Petitioners Versus THE KING-Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Decided on 30th May, 1949, from the High Court of Basutoland.
Honorable Judges
Lord Oaksey, Lord Reid and Sir John Beaumont
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1949 Privy Council 128 (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Lord Oaksey, Lord Reid and Sir John Beaumont
Parties MAMA KHABANE BOSHOANE PEETE and others-Petitioners Versus THE KING-Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1949 Privy Council 128 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1949 Privy Council 128 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Lord Oaksey, Lord Reid and Sir John Beaumont.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1949 Privy Council 128 (PLP) (MAMA KHABANE BOSHOANE PEETE and others-Petitioners Versus THE KING-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

Accomplice-Corroboration-One accomplice cannot corro borate another.

Judgment & Decree

LORD OAKSEY.-In this case the learned Chief Justice gave judgment before the report of their Lordships' Board in the case of Tumahole Bereng and others v. The King. His Lordship stated that one accomplice can corroborate another. That view of the law has now been overruled by their Lordships' Board. But it appears that the learned Chief Justice really decided the case quite independently of this view of the law, that he relied upon the corroboration of independent evidence of witnesses who impli cated a number of the accused, and was fully aware of the danger of accepting the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices. It is conceded that there was independent evidence proving that the murder had actually been committed. In their Lordships' opinion there was no miscarriage of justice in this case Accordingly, they will humbly advise His Majesty that the Petition for special leave to appeal ought to be dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.