Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence has a narrow scope of intrinsic value until and unless the said asserted fact has been proved through other corroborative and independent evidence, whereas Art.71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 also requires direct oral evidence and ousts the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

Thereafter the owner had gone missing and remaining suit land was transferred through mutation of inheritance in favour of defendant/brother and defendant/ sister considering him (the owner) dead

Plaintiffs were successors-in-interest of third brother who did not get any share from suit land

Suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed and mutations in question were declared invalid

Validity

Statement of plaintiff could not be relied upon as he was a minor at the time of his father's death, and he had not stated who told him that his father was unaware of the sale

Such statement of plaintiff was treated as mere hearsay

Where original owner did not opt to contest sale mutation while alive, his death could not confer any rights or standing upon his descendants to challenge such sale

Plaintiffs lacked standing, and their claim was barred by time limitations imposed by law

If evidence shows a person was alive within thirty years prior to the date when question of his status arises, there is a presumption that he is still alive

Burden of proof then falls upon the party asserting his death

Such presumption is susceptible to rebuttal under Article 124 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

If it can be demonstrated that such a person has not been heard of for a period of seven years by those who would naturally have maintained contact with him, the burden of proof then shifts to those claiming the person is still alive

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs predeceased his brother, thus, he had no claim to any inheritance from him

Plaintiffs lacked legal standing necessary to challenge validity of mutation of inheritance as they could not substantiate their claim to any share of inheritance

Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as none of the Courts below properly appreciated such aspect of the matter, and had misdirected themselves, holding that inheritance mutation was void

Supreme Court declared that both sale mutation and inheritance mutation were valid

Appeal was allowed.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused person committed murder of the deceased lady by firing on the allegation of kari

Admittedly, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses was merely hearsay, and none of the prosecution witnesses claimed to have seen the appellant while committing the murder of deceased

In legal proceedings, hearsay evidence was generally regarded as lacking probative value unless accompanied by corroborative evidence that substantiated its credibility

As such, the admissibility of hearsay evidence hinged on the presence of additional corroborative material that reinforced its validity and enhanced its trustworthiness

Without such corroboration, hearsay evidence failed to meet the legal standards necessary to impact the outcome of the case, as it did not sufficiently establish the facts it purported to support

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Preferred witnesses as per S. 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, i.e. the lamberdar or the members of union councils were not present at the time when concerned revenue officer had allegedly obtained signatures of the parties

Revenue officer had never appeared to depose in favour of the mutation or face cross-examination

Alleged witnesses of agreement to sell had never seen the seller receiving any payment

Deed writer had also admitted that he was not witness of payment of consideration

Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside while that of Trial Court was upheld

Revision petition was allowed.

Accused was charged that he along with his companion in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the deceased

Record showed that the three prosecution witnesses had deposed that the accused murdered the deceased, however, they remained mum for three years and eight months till confession of the accused before police and Judicial Magistrate

Even said witnesses had also deposed against the accused after knowing from police that accused had admitted his guilt that he had committed the murder of deceased through another person on payment of Rs.30,000

No evidentiary value of said witnesses keeping in view Art. 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, which provided that oral evidence must, in all cases whatever, be direct

In the present case, evidence of said witnesses was termed as hearsay evidence, which in the eyes of law could not be corroboratory until and unless was supported by incriminating articles coupled with strong direct evidence

No recovery from the accused was effected

Police Officials were also not eye-witnesses of the incident, therefore, the same had no weight

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Plea of the appellants (landowners) was that compensation for their land, acquired for construction of housing society, should be given to them at the commercial rate, whereas the price was wrongly assessed as of agricultural land

Validity

Appellants, apart from their attorney, also produced two witnesses but they deposed/admitted in the cross-examination that they had no personal knowledge about lis and had deposed whatever knowledge was given to them by the appellants

Statements of said witnesses were based on mere hearsay evidence which had narrow scope of intrinsic value until and unless the same had been corroborated with other evidence, whereas the Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 required that oral evidence shall be direct and such hearsay evidence was not admissible

Appeal dismissed.

Plea of the appellants (landowners) was that compensation for their land, acquired for construction of by-pass, should be given to them at the commercial rate, whereas the price was wrongly assessed as that of agricultural land

Validity

Appellants, apart from their attorney, also produced two witnesses but they deposed/admitted in their cross-examination that they had no personal knowledge about lis and had deposed whatever knowledge was given to them by the appellants

Statements of said witnesses were based on mere hearsay evidence which had narrow scope of intrinsic value until and unless the same had been corroborated with other evidence, whereas Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 required that oral evidence shall be direct and such hearsay evidence was not admissible

Appeal was dismissed.

Contention of plaintiff was that impugned sale deed was a fraudulent document and owner lady had not sold the suit property in favour of defendant

Suit was decreed concurrently

Validity

Defendant was bound to prove the execution and genuineness of impugned sale deed

Defendant did not appear in the witness box and only his attorney got recorded his statement

Evidence of defendant was hearsay as his attorney was not present at the time of execution of sale deed

Hearsay evidence was not admissible under the law

Defendant had not examined any attesting witness of sale deed which was required in the eye of law

Even Sub-Registrar or any other concerned official had not been produced to prove the execution of impugned sale deed

Defendant had failed to prove the execution of impugned sale deed, in circumstances

Plaintiff was illiterate lady who had denied the execution of sale deed

Protection had been provided to the illiterate and Pardanasheen ladies

Period of limitation to challenge a fraudulent transaction would run from the date of its knowledge

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, common intention

Act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Benefit of doubt

Hearsay evidence

Withholding of evidence

Non-production of material witness due to security concerns

Effect

Two police constables were on patrol when they signaled a motorbike to stop but its riders sped away and the constables chased them

Motorbike was chased into a street whereupon four persons came in the way of constables and an exchange of hot words followed whereupon said four persons fired at the constables, one of them died

Complainant was not an eye-witness to the firing and had allegedly reached the place of incident within a few minutes of the occurrence after being informed by his friend through mobile phone

Friend of complainant was a foundational witness of the prosecution case as it was his narration of the events to the complainant over the phone which led the complainant to go to the scene and formed basis of the FIR

Friend of complainant was not examined by the prosecution to corroborate the complainant's FIR especially in respect of the shooting of the deceased nor was any CDR (Call Data Record) produced by the prosecution to support such conversation

Impugned judgment although mentioned that the friend of complainant did not give evidence due to security concern but it was a weak argument for him not to give evidence as the court could always provide adequate security to a witness

Non-examination of the friend of complainant was an important omission by the prosecution as their case was built on the hearsay evidence

Statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. could never replace the value/ weight of evidence given under oath which was tested through cross-examination

Friend of complainant was originally on the calendar of witnesses and was later on given up, therefore, Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 came into play whereby it could be presumed that had the friend of complainant been produced he might not have given evidence favourable to the prosecution's case

Impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances and by extending benefit of doubt, accused was acquitted of the charge.

In the present case, evidence of complainant was hearsay as he had clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he had not himself witnessed the alleged incident and that he had narrated what he had been told by the injured

Statement of complainant had no evidentiary value in view of the provisions of Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984.

Accused was charged that during the commission of dacoity, he made firing upon the father of complainant who was hit and died

Employee of the deceased was allegedly involved in abetment for committing the offence

Admittedly, complainant was not eye-witness of the incident and that he was informed about the alleged incident by his wife

Such fact showed that a person whose evidence was hearsay had become complainant in the case, thus, the statement of complainant had no evidentiary value by virtue of the provisions of Art. 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Hearsay evidence, in the eyes of law, was the weakest type of evidence and could not be made basis for conviction.

Record showed that complainant admitted that he was not a witness of the incident but FIR was lodged by him on the basis of information received from others

On the other hand, son of the deceased had claimed to be present at the spot at the time of incident and had witnessed the incident, as such he could have been made complainant but brother of deceased, whose evidence was 'hearsay' had acted as complainant

Complainant's statement, in circumstances, had no evidentiary value by virtue of the provisions of Art. 71 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Said fact was fatal to the prosecution case.

Such evidence could not be made basis of a conviction.

Complainant claimed that he went towards a shop for purchasing household articles and found a stranger in the street, he inquired about the purpose of his presence; who replied that he had come to meet the accused

Complainant informed him that the street was closed ahead and the thoroughfare was used by womenfolk

Accused who had, in the meanwhile, come out of his house started abusing the complainant as to why he had stopped his guest; took out his pistol and fired at him, due to which one bullet hit at the right leg of the complainant

Validity

Complainant failed to mention the month in which the occurrence took place

Complainant had mentioned in his complaint that on coming out in the street, he found a person, whom he enquired about the purpose of his presence in the street, but in his statement before court complainant claimed that he found an Afghan refugee coming out from the house of accused and told him that since he used to visit regularly the house of accused, therefore he should use thoroughfare meant for gents and not of ladies

Complainant in his statement before court stated that the Afghan refugee tried to restrain him, but the complaint was silent in that regard

Complainant attempted to conceal his relation with the accused, but admitted in his cross-examination that the accused was his cousin

Shopkeeper was said to be the sole eye-witness of the occurrence, but his statement was hearsay evidence as the occurrence had not taken place in his presence rather according to him he enquired from the complainant about the occurrence, who disclosed that the accused had fired upon him

Shopkeeper stated that there existed a dispute relating to land between the parties

False implication of the accused could not be ruled out of consideration as the accused while recording his statement on oath took specific plea of false implication due to previous dispute

Accused was entitled to be extended benefit of doubt as a matter of right

Appeal was accepted and the judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside, in circumstances.

Complainant claimed that his brother while grazing goats disappeared, he searched for him, but could not succeed and that through Balochi Hal-o-Awal he came to know that accused along with co-accused persons had committed the murder of his brother and had buried his dead body at an unknown place

Validity

Complainant's statement reflected that it was based on hearsay evidence

Complainant had not directly witnessed the crime

Complainant had failed to report the matter to police of disappearance of his brother

Complainant's statement was not helpful for the case of prosecution

Both eye-witnesses had failed to maintain the exact date, month and year of the occurrence; had remained mum for two years despite having relations with the complainant party and belonging to the same tribe

Statement of second eye-witness was silent regarding burial of the dead body

Both eye-witnesses had unanimously admitted that complainant had brought Holy Quran and had enquired about his brother to which they had informed the complainant about the murder and burial of his brother

Complainant's source of knowledge that both eye-witnesses had secrets of his missing brother was not disclosed

Eye-witnesses were close relatives of the complainant party, thus for a prudent mind it was difficult to presume that neither they had resisted the occurrence nor the culprits had harmed them to become witnesses of the occurrence

Conduct of witnesses created reasonable doubt with regard to their presence at the place of occurrence or witnessing the crime with their open eyes

Police surgeon did not take into possession the bone marrow of the dead body for DNA test to establish that the exhumed dead body was not of someone else, but of the brother of complainant

Prosecution failed to establish that either the missing brother of the complainant was murdered or that he was buried at the place pointed out by the second eye-witness

Nomination of accused persons after two years of the occurrence was based on presumptions

False implication of accused person could not be ruled out of consideration

Accused was entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt as a matter of right

Appeal was accepted and the judgment passed by Trial Court was set aside.

Plea of Insurer was that insured person suffered from terminal illness at the time of purchase of policy but said fact was concealed from Insurer

Validity

Onus to prove said issue was on the Insurer, who produced Manager Claims and Death Claim Examiner

Said witnesses produced their inquiry reports in evidence

Inquiry reports were based on pure hearsay as said officers of the Insurer themselves conducted inquiries and recorded statements made by third persons

None of the said persons were directly called in the witness box so as to fulfill the requirements of law which required facts to be proved through direct evidence

Indirect evidence was inadmissible

Testimonies of both the said witnesses were devoid of legal relevance

Insurer was on sufficient notice as to the state of health of insured person at the time policy was sold and a premium was charged accordingly

Appeal was dismissed, accordingly.

Plaintiffs claimed that their predecessor in interest sold out a piece of land to the predecessor in interest of defendant and that extra land owned by plaintiffs was occupied by defendant

Trial court and appellate court concurrently dismissed the suit

Validity

Witnesses produced by plaintiffs were hearsay witnesses and they had not supported the version/assertion of the plaintiffs

Second witness admitted in his cross-examination that he was real maternal uncle of the plaintiffs, hence he was "interested witness" and his evidence was not reliable

First witness admitted in his cross-examination that father of defendant had passed away about 30 years ago, hence the suit of plaintiffs was time-barred

Plaintiffs failed to produce any documentary evidence in the Trial Court to substantiate their claim

Concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below were unexceptionable and needed no interference

Revision petition was dismissed. [Paras. 9, 10, 11, 12 & 14 of the judgment]

Present suit was filed after 32 years of the death of legal heir of propositus which was beyond the period of limitation

Propositus of the parties was governed by custom and inheritance mutations had rightly been sanctioned

Plaintiffs had no locus standi to challenge the impugned mutations

Suit of the plaintiffs had rightly been dismissed by the courts below on merits as well as on limitation

Propositus of the parties died prior to the enforcement of Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 when custom was still applicable and rule of inheritance was custom

If a person had acquired property under custom from a Muslim, he should be deemed to have become an absolute owner of such land as if the land had been devolved on him under the Muslim Shariat Law provided such acquisition has been acquired prior to the enforcement of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948

Impugned judgments passed by the courts below were based on valid reasons

No mis-reading, non-reading, infirmity or perversity was pointed out in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Not admissible.

Admissibility-Connection with res gestae-For identification-Improper admission-Accused to show if such evidence resulted in prejudice