| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 401 1956 SLD 401 = 1956 PLD 407 |
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1956, decided on 15th October 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th December, 1955, in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1955: P L D 1956 Lah. 100).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present : Muhammad Munir, C. J., M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court M. Ismail Bhatti, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed ;by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellant. S. Mohsln Shah, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (M. Z. Kitchlew, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for
Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1956, decided on 15th October 1956. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th December, 1955, in Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1955: P L D 1956 Lah. 100).
(Appellate Jurisdiction) Present : Muhammad Munir, C. J., M. Shahabuddin, A. R. Cornelius, Muhammad Sharif and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ
A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court M. Ismail Bhatti, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed ;by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellant. S. Mohsln Shah, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court (M. Z. Kitchlew, Advocate, Supreme Court, with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for
Respondent.
ABDUL QADIR-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law:
Section: 133
P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Pak.) 407 Evidence Act (I of 1871)----S. 133-Approver, evidence of-Corroboration-Proof-motive Accused's ignorance of ap prover's motive to commit offence-Not of material corrobora tive value-Merely being seen in company of approver : ignorance us to why approver implicates accused-Not sufficient confirmation of approver's testimony-Standard of corroborative evidence not to be varied in case of approver of education and apparent respectability if he is no better than a hired assassin-Two approvers to depose to same facts-Suspicious. Circumstances alleged as corroborative of the approver testimony and tending to connect the, accused with the crime must be adequately established before they can be considered sufficient for conviction of the accused. Where two approvers were active participaters in the murder, the two having committed the crime at the instigation of the accused, and the High Court had made it a reason for upholding conviction of the accused that neither of the approvers had any motive of his own to kill the deceased: Held, that though the accused had not in his defence suggested any motive on the part of either to kill the deceased, this by itself was an inconclusive circumstance and did not establish that in fact neither of them had any such motive. Motive is a factor which is peculiarly within the knowledge of the actor and a man's motive in doing a thing may not be known to his most intimate friends. The accused's ignorance of any such motive did not exclude the possibility of a motive having existed though unknown to the accused. This circumstance, therefore, did not have any material corroborative value. Further, neither merely being seen in the company of the approver, nor mere inability of the accused to explain why an accomplice gives evidence against him, nor both taken together can be such confirmation of the accomplice's testimony as the law has required the Courts to demand before they act upon such tainted; evidence. Courts have- never convicted a person simply on the ground that he is unable to explain why the…