1969 PLP 76 (SCMR)

Can be bused on testimony of a solitary, witness. D. M. A wan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masood Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 16th October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The‑ petitioner in this case was tried, along with three others and convicted by the Additional District Magistrate, Bahawalnagar, under sections 392 and 397 of the Pakistan penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fines. They all appealed to the High Court which dismissed the appeal of the petitioner but accepted the appeals of the others and acquitted them mainly, on the ground that their identification as participants in the incident was doubtful. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal but this petition is barred by 10 days. The only explanation offered for. this is that the delay occurred in getting the power‑of‑attorney executed by the petitioner in jail. It is further said that the petition was actually filed in time without the power‑of‑attorney and if limitation is calculated from that date, the petition is in time. The petition was incomplete without the power‑of‑attorney and, therefore, it could not be treated as having been filed in this Court until it was accompanied by a properly executed power‑of‑attorney. Apart from this, we find no substance in the petition even on merits. It is true that the conviction of the petitioner is based on the solitary evidence of one Falak Sher, a waterman at the railway station the booking office of which was burgled by the petitioner, but the petitioner was consistently identified by him both in the test identification parade and in Court as the robber who was armed with a gun which he fired twice in the air to scare away persons coming near during the commission of the dacoity at the alarm raised by the said witness. In this dacoity a telephone receiver was also stolen from the booking office but it was recovered from a pond at the pointing out by one of the acquitted accused. The evidence of the solitary witness was, therefore, also corroborated to some extent by this recovery. Learned counsel's contention that it would be unsafe to rely on the evidence of a solitary witness is, in our view, untenable, for, a conviction can be based on the evidence of even a single witness if his testimony is acceptable. The testimony of Falak Sher has been accepted by all the Courts below and we see no reason to differ from their conclusion. He had ample opportunity to see the petitioner and to single him out as the robber armed with a gun. This was a special circumstance which fixed his identity. In the circumstances, we dismiss this petition both on merits and on the ground that it is barred by time. Leave refused.