"\u003chtml xmlns:v=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml\"\r\nxmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 9\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"./2006J1111_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eRECORDING AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE*\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eJamrabi\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003esaif\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e3\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e3\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2006-09-16T05:55:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2006-09-16T05:56:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e9\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e5215\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e29727\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier Technologies (Pvt) Ltd\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e247\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e59\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e36506\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e9.2720\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Zoom\u003e150\u003c/w:Zoom\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\np.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:shapedefaults v:ext=\"edit\" spidmax=\"1031\"/\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:shapelayout v:ext=\"edit\"\u003e\r\n  \u003co:idmap v:ext=\"edit\" data=\"1\"/\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:shapelayout\u003e\u003c/xml\u003e\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eRECORDING \u003c/b\u003e\u003cb\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:normal\u0027\u003eAND \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eAPPRECIATION\r\n\u003c/span\u003eOF \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eEVIDENCE*\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-style:italic\u0027\u003eJustice \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eRahmat Hussain \u003c/span\u003eJafferi, \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eJudge, \u003c/span\u003eHigh \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eCourt Sindh\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold;mso-bidi-font-style:italic\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eMy lord Mr. Justice Iftikhar\r\nMuhammad Choudhry the Hon\u0027ble Chief Justice of Pakistan, Mr. Justice Sabihuddin\r\nAhmed the Acting Governor of Sindh, my lords Mr. Justice Rana Bhagwandas Senior\r\nPuisne Judge, Mr. Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Mr. Justice Sayed Saeed Ashhed,\r\nMr. Justice. Hamid Ali Mirza, Hon\u0027ble Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan,\r\nmy lord Mr. Justice Ghulam Rabbani the Acting Chief Justice, my distinguished\r\ncompanion Judges, Judges of subordinate Judiciary, the\u0027 underpaid, overworked\r\nand backbone of the judiciary.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eI an thankful to my lord the\r\nChief Justice of Sindh High Court for providing me an opportunity to discuss\r\nwith you on the topic \u0026quot;Recording And Appreciation of Evidence\u0026quot;. The\r\ntopic is divided into two parts and it is so vast that I will not be able to\r\njustify it in just 30 minutes. However, I will try to summarize it.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027font-size:10.0pt;\r\nmso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:red\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027font-size:10.0pt;\r\nmso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;color:red\u0027\u003e* Paper read \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eat \u003c/span\u003ethe Circuit Judicial Conference, \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eheld \u003c/span\u003ein \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eCircuit \u003c/span\u003eHouse,\r\n\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003eLarkana \u003c/span\u003eon 30-12-2005\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIn justice system the recording\r\nand appreciation of evidence play a very important and pivotal role in\r\nperforming the functions of a judicial officer in deciding cases. It is the\r\nprimary function of a Judge, trying a case to record the evidence which is\r\nrelevant, admissible not to permit questions which are irrelevant, indecent and\r\nnot to permit cross-examination which is harassing the witness not connected\r\nwith the facts of the case, based on vague allegation and without shade of\r\nfoundations. It has been held in [1] that the object of cross-examination is\r\nnot to exhaust a witness and in his state of helplessness to do something which\r\na counsel who is expert on the subject, intends to get. Therefore, the evidence\r\nshould be carefully recorded in accordance with the provisions of\r\nQanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Consequently only that evidence should be recorded\r\nwhich fulfils the requirement of various provisions of Qanun-e-Shandat\u0027 Order.\r\nAs such recording of inadmissible evidence must be avoided at all costs.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eBefore recording evidence the\r\nJudges must see what type of evidence is relevant and admissible. Ther\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:1.0pt\u0027\u003eefore\u003c/span\u003e judges should be well conversant with\r\nthe provisions of Qanun Shahadat Order. It has been observed by going through\r\nthe evidence recorded in various cases that evidence of witnesses is not being\r\nrecorded properly. Inadmissible evidence is being allowed to come on the record\r\nconsuming the precious time of the Court, which ultimately is discarded at the\r\nappellate stage. Therefore while recording \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:1.35pt\u0027\u003ethe\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:1.0pt\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003eevidence a Judge should play an active\r\nrole and participate in the proceedings actively so as to control to bring the\r\ninadmissible and irrelevant evidence on the record.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt is pointed that all judicial\r\nevidence is either direct or circumstantial By direct Evidence is meant when\r\nthe principle fact is attested directly by the witnesses, things or documents,\r\nto all other forms, the term circumstantial evidence is applied. Article 71 of\r\nQanun e-Shahadat Order deals with direct and oral evidence which means that\r\noral evidence must in all cases whatever be direct, that is, (1) if it refers\r\nto the fact which could be seen, it must be the evidence of a witness who says\r\nhe saw it, (2) if it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be the\r\nevidence of a witness who says he heard it, (3) if it refers to a fact which\r\ncould be perceived by any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the\r\nevidence of a witness who says he perceived it by the sense or in that manner\r\n(4) if it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held,\r\nit must be the evidence of the person who holds that opinion on those grounds.\r\nTherefore, it should be ensured that while recording the evidence, the\r\nwitnesses must fulfil the above mentioned conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIf a thing is produced in the\r\nevidence it must be that particular item or article. If a document is produced\r\nin evidence it must be produced in original because its contents are either to\r\nbe proved by primary or secondary evidence. In the first instance primary\r\nevidence, that is, the document in original is required to be produced in Court\r\nas required under Article 73. If conditions mentioned under Article 76 exist\r\nthen the contents of the document can be proved through secondary evidence. It\r\nshould be kept in view that production of a document and proof of document are\r\ntwo different subjects. The Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case\r\nreported in [2] observed that if documents are accepted in evidence, it will\r\nremain on record as exhibits and faithful copies of the originals and even if\r\noriginal document is produced and exhibited, it will also remain on record as\r\nprimary evidence, it cannot be taken for granted as bearing of the signature of\r\nthe person without proof that in fact it was written or signed by him by\r\nleading evidence fulfilling the conditions of proof as required under Art. 78\r\nof Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. Therefore, it should be emphasized that when a\r\ndocument is produced its author or its signatory should also be examined to\r\nprove the document as provided under Article 78 so that the Court can rely upon\r\nthe said document.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eApart from other pieces of\r\nevidence a Judge while recording evidence should pay attention to the following\r\ncategories of evidence:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eHEARSAY EVIDENCE.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eHearsay means that evidence,\r\nwhich does not drive its value from credit given to the witness himself, but\r\nwhich, rests also in part on the veracity and competency of some other person.\r\nThe Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in [3] observed that\r\nthe word hearsay is used in various senses, sometimes it means whatever a\r\nperson is heard to say, sometimes it means whatever a person declared on\r\ninformation given by someone else.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eNormally, hearsay evidence is\r\ninadmissible, therefore, it should be ensured that such evidence should not\r\ncome on the record. [4]. However, there are eight exceptions to the general\r\nrule which are mentioned in Art. 46:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(1) when it relates to cause of\r\ndeath, or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(2) is made in course of business,\r\nor\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(3) against interest of maker, or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(4) gives opinion as to public\r\nright or customs; or matter of general interest; or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(5) relates to existence of\r\nrelationship, or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(6) is made in will or deed\r\nrelating to family affairs; or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(7) is document relating to\r\ntransaction mentioned in Art.26, paragraph (a); or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(8) is made by several persons\r\nand expresses feelings relevant to matter in question.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIf any fact falls within the\r\nabove-mentioned exceptions and fulfil the conditions mentioned therein then it\r\nis admissible, otherwise not.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003eTHE EVIDENCE OF AUDIO, VIDEO AND TAPE RECORDER\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eUnder Article 164 of\r\nQanun-e-Shahadat Order, Audio, Video, Tape Recorder\u0027 and their transcriptions\r\nare admissible, but certain conditions are to be fulfilled, as observed by the\r\nHon\u0027ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases reported in [5]. The evidence\r\nshould be recorded by examining the person who actually recorded them as well\r\nas there must be evidence of the identity of voice and identity of person who\r\nis shown in the Video Tape and whose voice has been recorded: In forgery cases\r\nthe burden of proof that a signature of a person on a document was forged would\r\nbe upon that person who asserts such forgery.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt has been observed while\r\nexamining the various statements of witnesses recorded by the trial Judges that\r\nwhile recording the statement of police officer inadmissible evidence is being\r\nrecorded in the shape of admission or confession of an accused person before a\r\npolice officer or statement of witness before a police office. The Judges are\r\noverlooking the provisions of Art.38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order under which a\r\nconfession before a police officer is inadmissible and while recording the\r\nstatement of police officer disclosing the facts given to him by a witness\r\noverlooking the provisions of sections 161 and 162, Cr.P.C. under which a\r\nstatement of a witness recorded by a police officer cannot be used by the\r\nprosecution. However an accused can use such statement and that too for a\r\nlimited purpose to contradict the witness. The tendency of recording of above\r\nmentioned facts in the evidence. of investigation officer is increasing day by\r\nday as some. Senior Sessions Judges who were/are Presiding Anti-Terrorism\r\nCourts and Accountability Courts were/are recording such statements, therefore,\r\nthe Judges should refrain from recording such statements.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt has also been observed that\r\nthe defence counsel raised objection about the admissibility of evidence in\r\nrecording such evidence but the trial Judges did not pay adequate attention to\r\nthe objection and observed that the said objection would be decided at the time\r\nof final arguments. It is incumbent upon the judicial officer to decide the\r\nobjection then and there so that inadmissible evidence should not come on\r\nrecord which might subsequently prejudice the mind of the Court at the time of\r\nreading such evidence and the party concern may take steps to bring admissible\r\nevidence and produce it before it is too late. The said objection should be\r\ndecided immediately in such a manner that recording of evidence should not be\r\ninterrupted by passing short order or if some detailed reasons are required\r\nthen such reasons can be given while writing the judgment. These facts have\r\nbeen pointed out by this Court in various judgments, one of them is reported in\r\n[6], but it appears that the Judges are not reading the law books or they just\r\nignore the observations made by this Court to correct themselves in recording\r\nthe evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt has also been observed that\r\nwhile recording the contradictions of a witness from his statement recorded\r\nunder section 161, Cr.P.C. Judges are taking upon themselves by observing that\r\nsuch fact was recorded or not recorded in the police statement of the witness\r\nwithout realizing the fact that the said statement was not recorded by any\r\njudicial officer, and no presumption of genuineness is attached to the said\r\nstatement. Under Art.140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order a procedure has been\r\nprovided to obtain such contradictions. In the Book [7] Munir, C.J. pointed out\r\nas under:--\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;It is of great importance\r\nto remember that, when a witness is sought to be contradicted by his statement\r\nto the police, his attention has got to be drawn to that part of the statement\r\nwhich is inconsistent with his statement in Court, by reading out to him that\r\nparticular part of the statement from the copy, so that he may explain the\r\ninconsistency. Where a witness has made a long statement to the police, and the\r\nonly question put to him by the defence is whether a particular exhibit is his\r\nstatement, it is impossible for the witness to understand what portion of it\r\nwould be used for contradicting him. When a witness has thus been confronted\r\nwith the statement or particular portions of it,. only that much of the\r\nstatement can be admitted in evidence with which he has thus been confronted\r\nand which has subsequently been duly proved. Portions of the copy, therefore,\r\nwhich have been so used should be marked and exhibited in case. The rule as to\r\nconfrontation applied to illiterate witnesses \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\"mso-spacerun:\r\nyes\"\u003e \u003c/span\u003e------------------------------------------------------------------------------\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThere is no presumption as to the\r\ngenuineness of the statement contained in the police diary, and, therefore, the\r\nrecord of the witness\u0027s statement to the police has to be proved. This may be proved\r\nin any manner in which a writing is permitted by law to be proved, though\r\nordinarily the officer who recorded the statement should be called to depose\r\nthat the copy is a true copy of the record of the witness\u0027s statement to the\r\npolice. In every case where a witness is confronted with a portion of his\r\npolice statement which he repudiates, the police officer recording his\r\nstatement should be questioned specifically with regard to that portion of the\r\nstatement. The practice of merely asking the police officer perfunctorily\r\nwhether a particular document represents the witness\u0027s statement as a whole\r\ncannot but be condemned.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.2pt;\r\nmso-bidi-font-weight:bold;mso-bidi-font-style:italic\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eA\r\nDivision Bench of this Court in [8] after relying upon above portion of the\r\nbook, held that contradictions are required to be proved in the above manner.\r\nIf such procedure is not adopted then the said contradictions cannot be taken\r\ninto consideration.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eHowever\r\na judicial officer shall make such observation with regard to the statement\r\nrecorded by the Court such as 164, Cr. P.C. etc. as the presumption of\r\ngenuineness is attached to the said statement and the record pertains to\r\njudicial proceedings. Apart from such judicial record no such observations\r\nshall be made at the time of recording the statement of witness in respect of\r\ncontradictory statement made by him in Court from his 161, Cr.P.C. statement.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIt\r\nhas also been observed that the judicial officers are not recording the\r\nstatement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. properly. During my inspection\r\nI found that Judges had incorporated the charge in the statement of accused\r\nrecorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. excluding the portions of offences and\r\nsections of law. It is brought to the notice of judicial officers that a\r\nstatement under section 342, Cr.P.C. is recorded at any time. If some\r\nincriminating evidence is brought on the record then it can be put to the\r\naccused person and obtain an explanation of such incriminating evidence led by\r\nthe prosecution. Finally at the close of the prosecution all the pieces of\r\nevidence on which a conviction can be based or material aspects of the case are\r\nrequired to be put to the accused to obtain his explanation but it should also\r\nbe ensured that the questions should not be such which tantamount to\r\ncross-examine the accused person. It is well-settled principle of law that if a\r\npiece of evidence is not put to the accused \u003c/span\u003ein \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003ehis statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. then the said piece of\r\nevidence cannot be used against the accused for convicting him. As such,\r\njudicial officers must pay special attention in recording the statement of\r\naccused under section 342, Cr.P.C that can only be done if the Judges\r\nthemselves go through the statement of witnesses before recording such\r\nstatement to ascertain various pieces of evidence involving the accused in the\r\ncase.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIt\r\nhas further been noted, while hearing the appeals that the Judges are not\r\nrecording the evidence of mashir of place of incident properly as while\r\nrecording the statement of mashir, the Judges simply allow the mashir to state\r\nthat \u0026quot;I went to the place of the incident where the police prepared the\r\nmashirnama and such mashirnama is produced in evidence.\u0026quot; It is brought to\r\nthe notice of judicial officers that mashirnama itself is inadmissible piece of\r\nevidence under Art.49 of Qanune-Shahadat Order. There is no provision in the\r\nCriminal Procedure Code or in Police Rules for preparation of mashirnama of\r\nplace of incident. Police officer prepares it voluntarily during the discharge\r\nof his official duties rather than records made in the discharge of his\r\nofficial duties. It can be used for refreshing memory under Art.155 of\r\nQanun-e-Shahadat Order subject to provisions of section 161, Cr.P.C. Specific\r\nRule 2 (IX) Part C Chapter V of Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal\r\nCirculars deals with the above subject. When a witness had seen the place of\r\nthe incident then he must give each and every detail of such place and the\r\nJudges should specifically inquire from such witness to give all the details\r\nwhich he saw, at the place of the incident. Without mentioning such facts the\r\nevidence on the above subject would not be complete. Therefore, the Judges\r\nwhile recording the statement of mashir of place of incident should pay special\r\nattention and to bring all the facts on record which the witness had seen at the\r\nplace of the incident so as to give complete picture of the scene of incident.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eWhile\r\nrecording evidence, the law imposes heavy responsibility upon the Judges,\r\ntherefore, very vast powers have been given to the Judges to tackle the\r\nsituation to meet the ends of justice in the shape of Articles 131, 143, 144,\r\n145, 146, 155, 161 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order and section 162, Cr.P.C. The\r\npowers given under Art.161, are so wide that a Judge can ask any question\r\nwhether relevant or irrelevant to discover or to obtain proper proof of\r\nrelevant fact and may order the production of any document or thing and parties\r\ncannot raise any objection to any such question or order and on that question\r\nthe parties cannot cross-examine the witness unless permitted by the Court. Nevertheless,\r\nthe judgment should not be based on irrelevant and unproved facts as provided\r\nunder first proviso to Art. 161. The Judges can exercise these powers in\r\nappropriate cases liberally to advance the cause of justice if any lacuna is\r\nleft by the prosecution or the defence. This further emphasizes upon the Judges\r\nthat they should take very active and positive role in recording the evidence.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eThe\r\nsubject is so vast that time does not permit me to elaborate and give other\r\ninstances of recording the evidence and to pinpoint the inadmissible evidence\r\nwhich is being recorded or which is not required to be recorded in the\r\nstatement by the Judges. Due to paucity of time, I am just closing this chapter\r\nso as to discuss other portion of the topic i.e. appreciation of evidence.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eAn\r\nother function of the Court and most difficult in arriving at a proper and just\r\ndecision of a case is the appreciation of evidence. If the evidence is not\r\nappreciated properly and carefully examined then there would be apprehension of\r\nmiscarriage of justice. In appreciating the evidence, several pieces of\r\nevidence brought on record should be considered and the conclusion must be\r\nbased on such evaluation of the total evidence brought on the record. It should\r\nbe ensured that no piece of evidence should be ignored and no assumption should\r\nbe made on the facts not mentioned in the evidence on the record. There are\r\nvarious \u003c/span\u003etypes of evidence which are led in Criminal Cases and they\r\nrequire proper appreciation and examination. Basically main evidence consists\r\nof oral evidence which is based on the witnesses of the incident. The said\r\nwitnesses are classified in various categories. Some of the categories and\r\ntheir basic rules of appreciation as given by the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court are as\r\nunder:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eCHANCE WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eA chance witness is a person who\r\njust happened to be at the scene of offence or near it for no valid reason for\r\nbeing there. General rule is that the evidence of a chance witness cannot be\r\nconsidered unless it is corroborated by other piece of evidence. [9]. If an\r\nincident takes place at a public place like bus stand, railway platform, level\r\ncrossing, shopping centre etc. and a person is present and witness the incident\r\nhe cannot be considered as a chance witness though he may be residing far away\r\nfrom the place of the incident but he can be termed as a natural witness and\r\nhis evidence can be relied upon. [10].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eSOLITARY WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt has been observed that trial\r\nCourts are discarding the evidence of solitary witness which stands\r\nuncorroborated but the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported\r\nin [11] relied upon a solitary witness and held that there was no law that\r\ndeposition of one witness should not be believed or accepted nor it was in\r\ncontravention of any principle of law. Solitary statement of a witness when\r\nappearing reliable and confidence inspiring is deemed sufficient for bringing\r\nhome guilt of the accused. [12]. It is pointed out that it is not the number of\r\nwitnesses, which is important but the quality of evidence, that is to be\r\nconsidered. [13].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eHOSTILE AND WON OVER WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Privy Council in the case\r\nreported in [14] observed that when the Court considers that the witness has\r\nbeen won over, his evidence in Court must be entirely ignored. The Hon\u0027ble\r\nSupreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported in [15] observed that testimony\r\nof a hostile witness cannot be altogether left out of consideration and has to\r\nbe considered like the evidence of any other witness, but with a caution, for\r\nthe simple reason that he may speak in different tones. It is for the Court to\r\ndecide in what voice he speaks, therefore, in such case evidence has to be\r\ndecided by corroboration from independent and conformity with the remaining\r\nevidence. It has also been held in \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003e[16]\r\n\u003c/span\u003ethat the primary question is not that the witness is hostile or\r\ndisinterested whether a witness is honest or dishonest. A hostile witness may\r\nbe truthful one, while disinterested witness may be bribed or pressurized to\r\nmake a false statement. The Court should look to the quality of evidence\r\nwhether probable or constant. Yet in another case [17] it has been held that\r\nthe Court should take entire evidence into consideration of a hostile witness\r\nand to see whether any part of his evidence is worthy of belief in the light of\r\nother evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eCHILD WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eBefore recording the statement of\r\na child witness, the Judges are required to record questions put to the witness\r\nand answers while giving their opinion about his or her competence. No set of questions\r\nare prescribed under Article 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The Hon\u0027ble Supreme\r\nCourt of Pakistan believed the statement of child witness on the ground that\r\nthe evidence of child witness possessing sufficient understanding can be\r\nbelieved and relied upon for conviction. [18]. Even the testimony of child\r\nwitness of six years old was relied upon by the Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court of\r\nPakistan when it inspired confidence which was supported by medical evidence\r\nand last seen evidence [19]. In [20], it has been held that the evidence of a\r\nchild witness is a delicate matter and normally it is not safe to rely upon it\r\nunless corroborated. It is a rule of prudence. Great care is to be taken that\r\nin the evidence of child element of coaching is not invalid. As a rule the\r\nevidence of a child witness is not be relied upon unless corroborated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eAPPROVER AND ACCOMPLICE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eUnder Article 16 of\r\nQanun-e-Shahadat Order an accomplice is a competent witness except in the case\r\nof an offence punishable with Hadd and a conviction is not illegal merely\r\nbecause it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.\r\nNevertheless under illustration (b) of Article 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order an\r\naccomplice is unworthy of credit unless he is corroborated on material\r\nparticulars. Therefore, the evidence of approver and accomplice requires\r\nindependent corroboration before relying upon his evidence. [21]. It is further\r\npointed out that an accomplice cannot corroborate another accomplice. [22].\r\nHowever Supreme Court of India in [23] has given an exception to the above\r\ngeneral rule and held that the testimony of an accomplice can in law be used to\r\ncorroborate another though it ought not to be so used, save in exceptional\r\ncircumstances and for reasons disclosed. For attracting the exception it should\r\nalso be proved that there has been no chance of collaboration or consultation\r\nbetween the accomplices, they were not actuated by malice or influenced by\r\ninducement and their stories implicating the accused person agree with each\r\nother. The sequel merely points out circumstances which, if they exist, may\r\nlessen the degree of corroboration required, but it does not make the general\r\nrule of caution inapplicable.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT\r\nWITNESSES\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eA\r\nwitness neither related to complainant nor inimical to accused would not stamp\r\nhis testimony necessarily with, truth. The acid test of veracity of a witness\r\nis inherent merit of his statement. Furthermore mere disinterest of a witness\r\ndoes not prove that he has come forward with a true statement. The statement\r\nitself has to be scrutinized thoroughly and it is to be seen as to whether in\r\nthe circumstances of the case the statement is reasonable, probable or\r\nplausible and could be relied upon. The principle that a disinterested witness\r\nis always to be relied upon even if his statement is unreasonable, improbable\r\nand not plausible then it would lead to a very dangerous consequence. [24].\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eINTERESTED, INIMICAL AND RELATED\r\nWITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eMere\r\nrelationship of a witness with the deceased or the complainant, would not make\r\nhim an interested witness but interested witness is one who has a motive to\r\nfalsely implicate an accused. Therefore, mere relationship of a witness with\r\nthe complainant party is no ground to discard his evidence as interested\r\nwitness but if he has a motive to falsely implicate the accused, then general\r\nrule is that, his evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration. [25].\r\nNevertheless, the general rule is not an inflexible. In [26] the Hon\u0027ble\r\nSupreme Court of Pakistan mentioned certain conditions for accepting the\r\nevidence of interested witness without corroboration and when corroboration is\r\nnecessary.. It has been observed that rule of prudence is to see:(a) whether\r\nthe witness saw the occurrence and could identify the culprit; (b) whether they\r\ncan be relied upon without corroboration; (c) whether the persons charged are\r\nnot excessive; (d) a fact of corroboration in each case depends on particular\r\ncircumstances of each case. In [27], it has been observed that interested\r\nwitness is one who has motive to falsely implicate an accused. There cannot be\r\nan inflexible rule that an interested witness can never be accepted without\r\ncorroboration. What corroboration is necessary?. The corroboration found in the\r\ncase was (a) the number of culprits mentioned was such as was required for the\r\njob; (b) the persons mentioned were such as would be accepted to join in the\r\nattack. In [28] it has been observed that testimony of interested witness could\r\nbe believed without corroboration if intrinsic worth of such evidence satisfies\r\nthe judicial conscience of the Judge.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eCONTRADICTIONS, DISCREPANCIES,\r\nIMPROVEMENTS AND OMMISSIONS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIt\r\nhas been found that the trial Courts are giving undue importance to\r\ncontradictions in evidence without first examining them as to whether the said\r\ncontradictions are major or minor. It is well-settled that the minor\r\ncontradictions in the evidence carry no weight. The major contradictions are\r\nsuch under which either the story of the prosecution is changed or some\r\nmaterial changes have been made so as to fit in the circumstances of the case\r\nor to make them consistent with other pieces of evidence such as medical\r\nevidence etc. Those contradictions carry weight and should be examined minutely\r\nbefore discarding the evidence of a witness. The contradictions may be in the\r\ntestimony of same witness or between the evidence of some of several witnesses.\r\nThe Judges should realize that the contradictions are bound to arise in the\r\ntestimony of witnesses especially if their evidence is recorded after a long time\r\nof the incident, loss of memory and sense of observation of witness to perceive\r\nan event and give importance to different aspects of it. The Judges should also\r\ntake note of the fact that the contradictions in the evidence of Investigation\r\nOfficer occur because of the fact that he frequently deals with similar cases\r\nand may mix up the facts of one case with another, therefore, in appropriate\r\ncases the Judges should allow the Investigation Officer to refresh his memory\r\nunder Art.155 by looking up the relevant case diaries. Keeping in view all\r\nthese facts, the superior Courts have ruled that unimportant contradictions\r\nwhich are not material and connected with the actual incident should be\r\nignored, particularly if the evidence of witness is recorded after months or\r\nyears of the incident.[29]. There are cases in which the witnesses make\r\nimprovements in their evidence. The rule is that if improvements are proved in\r\naccordance with law then such improvements are unworthy of reliance and the\r\nevidence of the witness requires corroboration. \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e[30]\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt;\r\nmso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eAPPLICATION OF MAXIM \u0026quot;FALSUS\r\nIN UNO FALSUS IN OMNI BUS\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eThe\r\nmaxim means false in one thing is false in all has not been followed by\r\nsuperior Courts and on the contrary they have ruled sifting grain of truth from\r\nthe straw. [31]. Thus the stress should be on sifting of evidence and not on\r\nrejecting the evidence in cases where a witness has spoken lie. [32]. The grain\r\nin the evidence of a witness is that part of evidence, which finds support or\r\ncorroboration from other evidence on the record of the case, which may be oral\r\nevidence, documentary evidence, circumstantial evidence, medical evidence or an\r\nevidence of an expert like a Ballistic Expert and Handwriting Expert.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eCOURT WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eUnder\r\nthe law the prosecution is duty bound to place tangible evidence likely to\r\nthrow light on the crime before the Court. Withholding of such evidence may\r\nlikely cause miscarriage of justice and likely to be treated by the Court as\r\nflaw in the prosecution evidence. In such a situation it is obligatory for the\r\nCourts to examine such witnesses as Court witness. The Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court of\r\nPakistan approves an \u003c/span\u003eaction of a Judge when he summons a material\r\nwitness when parties avoided to produce.[33]\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eF.I.R AND WITNESSES\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court in the\r\ncase reported in [34] observed that mere non-mention of names of the witnesses\r\nin the F.I.R. is not always a sufficient reason for discarding the evidence of\r\na person claiming to be eye-witness. In [35], it has been observed that if the\r\ncircumstances of the case demand that the witnesses should have been examined.\r\nInference adverse to the prosecution in such case could and should be drawn. In\r\nanother case reported in \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:bold\u0027\u003e[36] \u003c/span\u003eit\r\nhas been observed that witness mentioned in the F.I.R. substituted, version of\r\noccurrence altered during the trial and injury of deceased not explained\r\nproperly, benefit of doubt was given to the accused.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eRELUCTANCE OF NATURAL WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eTO APPEAR AS EYE-WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt is common that natural and\r\nindependent witnesses are reluctant to become eye-witnesses in an incident\r\nbecause these independent onlookers are not prepared to depose in Court about\r\nwhat they had seen so as not to risk the animosity of the assailants or his\r\npartisans, no adverse inference can be taken against the prosecution in such a\r\nsituation [37]. In the last mentioned case it has been observed that it is\r\ncommon experience nowadays that due to apathy, the public at large are hesitant\r\nto come forward to witness the recovery in criminal cases for fear of reprisals\r\nin view of the present deteriorating law and order situation in the country.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003ePOLICE OFFICER AS RECOVERY WITNESS\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThere is no rule that evidence of\r\na police officer cannot be accepted as a recovery witness. The police officers\r\nare good witnesses like other citizens, in the absence of any material to\r\nindicate that they are biased or prejudiced for some extraneous reasons. [38].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eCONFESSION\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eConfession has not been defined\r\nin Qanun-e-Shahadat Order but it is included under the heading \u0026quot;Admissions\u0026quot;.\r\nIf the confession is recorded in accordance with law and it is voluntary and\r\ntrue then conviction can be based on the confession and such conviction is not\r\nillegal even if the confession has been retracted. A Bench of four Hon\u0027ble\r\nJudges of Supreme Court in the cases reported in \u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003e[39] \u003c/span\u003erepelled the argument that retracted confession was not\r\nsufficient in law to maintain conviction. However in subsequent authorities the\r\nHon\u0027ble Supreme Court of Pakistan confirmed the above rule but further added\r\nthat as a rule of procedure the Court seeks corroboration of the same on all\r\nmaterial particulars. [40]. In the last mentioned authority it has been\r\nobserved that it is settled law that conviction of an accused can be based even\r\non retracted confession if the Court is satisfied that the confession was made\r\nvoluntary and true. However as a rule of caution and prudence the Court looks\r\nfor other evidence and material on the record of the case to seek corroboration\r\nof the retracted confession. Thus the corroboration is not a rule of statutory\r\nlaw as there is provision in Qanun-e-Shahadat Order that confession should be\r\ncorroborated, but it is a rule of procedure, prudence and caution.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eLAST SEEN\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eIt is settled that evidence of\r\ndeceased last seen alive in the company of the accused is a weak type of\r\nevidence which cannot be relied upon without corroborative piece of evidence.\r\nThe said piece of evidence was not considered enough to sustain conviction by\r\nthe Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court in [41].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eCIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eWhen there is no ocular testimony\r\nand the case rests upon circumstantial evidence only, the fundamental principle\r\nof universal application is that in order to justify the inference of guilt,\r\nthe incriminating fact must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused\r\nor the guilt of other persons and non-compatibility of explanation upon any\r\nother reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt of accused [42]. In\r\ncircumstantial evidence no link in the chain should be missing and all\r\ncircumstances must lead to the guilt of the accused [43].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eDYING DECLARATION\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003ePrinciple considerations of dying\r\ndeclaration are: (1) there is no specific forum before which dying declaration\r\nis to be made, (2) there is no bar that it cannot be made to a private person, (3)\r\nthere is no legal requirement that dying declaration must be read over or it\r\nmust be signed by its maker, (4) it should be free from influence, (5) to prove\r\nsuch dying declaration the person who recorded it should be explained, (6) such\r\ndeclaration becomes substantive evidence when it is proved that it was made by\r\nthe deceased, (7) corroboration of a dying declaration is not a rule of law but\r\nit is a requirement of prudence, (8) such declaration when proved by cogent\r\nevidence can be made a basis for conviction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eFor maintaining conviction on\r\ndying declaration following conditions are required to be fulfilled:-\u0026#8209;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(1) Whether there was no chance\r\nof mistaken identity.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.5pt;\r\nmso-bidi-font-weight:bold;mso-bidi-font-style:italic\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(2) Whether deceased was capable\r\nof making statement.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(3) After how long time after\r\nsustaining injury deceased made his statement.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(4) Whether statement rings true.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(5) Whether it was free from\r\nprompting from outside.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e(6) Whether deceased was a man of\r\nquestionable character.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThe Hon\u0027ble Supreme Court of\r\nPakistan in [44] observed that dying declaration is a substantive piece. of\r\nevidence and can be used against the accused when there is nothing to suggest\r\nthat the deceased has substituted an innocent person.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eImmediate apprehension of death\r\nis not acceptable to treat a statement as dying declaration, last incriminating\r\nstatement made by deceased can legitimately be treated as dying declaration.\r\n[45]. However, incomplete dying declaration is not admissible in evidence as.\r\nheld in [46]. Nevertheless, dying declaration recorded 22 hours after occurrence\r\nand relatives of deceased present with him during such period, such dying\r\ndeclaration was not relied on. [47].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eDELAY IN LODGING OF F.I.R.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eMere delay \u0027in lodging of F.I.R.\r\nis not enough to hold the prosecution version as. concocted or doubtful. Further,\r\ndelay in lodging of F.I.R. can be ignored in the presence of trustworthy and\r\nconvincing evidence on record [48].\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003eDELAY IN SENDING ARTICLES TO EXPERT\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nbold\u0027\u003eIn [49] \u003c/span\u003eit has been held that delay in sending incriminating\r\narticle to the concerned quarter for expert opinion cannot be considered fatal\r\nin the absence of objection regarding the same evidence tampered with or\r\nmanipulated.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center\u0027\u003e\u003cb style=\u0027mso-bidi-font-weight:\r\nnormal\u0027\u003e\u003cu\u003eAPPLICATION OF SECTION 103, Cr. P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eThere is a general perception among\r\nthe Judges that section 103, Cr. P.C. is applicable to every recovery. However\r\nit is brought to their notice that two essential conditions for application of\r\nsection 103, Cr.P.C. are: first there should be a search, secondly, a search\r\nshould be of a place. Search indicates seeking of something, which is hidden or\r\nconcealed. If a thing is lying open or produced by the accused or a witness or\r\npointed out by the accused or is found on the information given by accused\r\nperson in custody it cannot constitute search for he purpose of section 103,\r\nCr.P.C. Reference is invited to [50]. The said provision is also not applicable\r\nto a search of a moving vehicle or a\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify\u0027\u003eContinue       \u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal\u003e\u003c![if !supportEmptyParas]\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c![endif]\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"