| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1973 SLG 254 1973 SLD 254 1973 PLD 595 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1972, decided on 29th August, 1973, dates of hearings: 11th, 14th and 15th May 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Lahore, dated the 4th December 1970, in Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1969 and "Murder
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, ACTG. C.J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, SALAHUDDIN AHMED, ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1972, decided on 29th August, 1973, dates of hearings: 11th, 14th and 15th May 1973. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Lahore, dated the 4th December 1970, in Criminal Appeal No. 628 of 1969 and "Murder
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB ALI, ACTG. C.J., WAHEEDUDDIN AHMED, SALAHUDDIN AHMED, ANWARUL HAQ AND MUHAMMAD GUL, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ABDUL MAJID AND ANOTHER
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860),S. 302 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 337-Murder-Approver's evidence-Kind of corroboration required. The evidence of an accomplice must be confirmed not only as to the circumstances of the crime, but also as to the identity of the prisoner. The corroboration need not be of all the circumstances of the crime. It is sufficient if there is confirmation as to the material circumstances of the crime and of the identity of the accused in relation to the crime. The corroboration must be by independent testimony which affects the accused by connecting or tending to connect him with the crime. In other words, it must be evidence which implicates him, that is, which confirms in some material particular not only the evidence that the crime has been committed, but also that the prisoner committed it. The extent and nature of corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice may vary from case to case. The rule of practice requiring corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice is that the corroboration must be in respect of some material particulars implicating the accused, and it is not necessary that evidence of the accomplice should be corroborated in every detail of the crime. King v. Baskerville (1916) 2 K B 658; Mahadeo v. Emperor 40 C W N 1164; Ishaq v. The Crown P L D 1954 F C 335; Fazal Dad v. The Crown p L D 1955 F C 152; Abdul Khaliq v. This State P I. D 1970 S C 166 and Ghulam Qadir v. State P L D 1959 S C (Pak,) 377 ref. (a) Penal Code (XLY of 1860), Ss. 302 & 460-Contention that offence under S. 460 Includes causing death of a person in course of house-trespass anti so an accused could not be convicted for murder in addition to offence under S. 460-Held, accused could be charged with and convicted of all offences committed in course of same transaction. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Farooq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Rustam S. Sidhwa, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz All, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent. Dates of hearings: 11th, 14th and 15th May 1973. JUDGMENT SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal by special…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492