1971 PLP 659 (SCMR)
OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus The STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1971 PLP 659 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus The STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1971 PLP 659 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1971 PLP 659 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1971 PLP 659 (SCMR) (OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus The STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing : 8th October 1971.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore, High Stars Court, Lahore, dated the 10th June 1971, in Criminal Revision No. 477 of 1970). Criminal trial‑Witness, interested‑Conviction can be based n solitary evidence of interested witness‑Corroboration, in case of interested witness, need not be of sane probative force as in case of accomplice‑Solitary witness whether should be believed or not, depends on circumstances of particular case‑Penal Code (XLV of 1.860), S.
307. The broad proposition that no conviction can be based on the solitary evidence of an interested witness cannot be accepted. There can never be an inflexible rule that the statement of an `interested' witness can never be accepted without corroboration. Besides for corroboration it is not necessary that there should be the word of an independent witness supporting the story put forward by an interested witness. Corroboration may be afforded anything the circumstances of a case which tends sufficiently be satisfy the mind of the Court that the witness has spoken the truth. What circumstances will be sufficient as corroboration it is not possible to lay down. In the case of an interested witness the corroboration need not be of the same probative force as in the case of an accomplice for the two do not stand on the same footing. It is thus evident that it depends upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case whether the solitary witness should be believed or not. Nazir v. State P L D 1962 S C 269 ref. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑The petitioner has challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. It has been contended that his conviction could not be legally based upon the evidence of a solitary interested witness viz. Karam Din. According to the medical evidence Karam Din received no less than 8 grievous injuries with some sharp‑edged weapon. This fully supports Karam Din's evidence that he was injured 11 times with hatchets by the petitioners. The evidence of motive also lends support to his evidence. We are unable to accept the broad proposition that no con viction can be based on the solitary evidence of an interested witness. This view is not supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Nazir v. State (P L D 1962 S C 269) as claimed on behalf of the petitioners. In the case under report it has been held that there can never be an inflexible rule that the statement of an `interested' witness can never be accepted without corroboration. Besides it has been held in the case under report that for corroboration it is not necessary that there should be the word of an independent witness supporting the story put forward by an interested witness. Corroboration may be afforded by anything in the circum stances of a case which tends sufficiently to satisfy the mind of the Court that the witness has spoken the truth. What circum stances will be sufficient as‑ corroboration it is not possible to lay down. But, as the question before the Court would be whether some innocent person had not been implicated in addition to those who were guilty the circumstance relied upon must have a bearing on this question. In the case of an interested witness the corroboration need not be of the same probative force as in the case of an accomplice for the two do not stand on the same footing. It is thus evident that it depends upon the facts and circum stances of a particular case whether the solitary witness should be believed or not. In the instant case all the three Courts have believed the witness whose evidence, as we have already noticed, has received corroboration from other reliable evidence. The First Information Report was lodged by a stranger and mere delay in lodging it is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Karam Din who had been seriously injured and was not responsible for the delay in lodging the First Information Report. It is a case of mere appreciation of evidence and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.