| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3060 1970 SLD 3060 = 1970 PCRLJ 287 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1966, decided on 5th November 1969.
Presented By: Abdul Hakim, J
Akhtaruddin Ahmad for Appellants. Shah Hurmatullah for the State.
Criminal Appeal No. 489 of 1966, decided on 5th November 1969.
Presented By: Abdul Hakim, J
Akhtaruddin Ahmad for Appellants. Shah Hurmatullah for the State.
MANSUR ALI AND 2 OTHERS-Accused-Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 154
(a) Witness -Contradictory statements in committing Court and -trial Court-Motive, other than stating truth-Such witness basically dishonest and untrustworthy-Doubt thus thrown on such statement must go to benefit of accused unless its resolution possible with reference to other credible evidence and not on mere assumptions. A witness who gives contradictory statements in the commit ting Court and in the trial Court with a motive other than stating the truth is a basically dishonest and untrustworthy witness. Where a witness is found to speak lie and perjure evidence in a case with a motive other than stating the truth, doubt is thrown on his statement which must go to the benefit of the accused unless its resolution is possible with reference- to other credible evidence and not on mere assumptions regarding the motives by which the witness might have been guided in. making the variant statements. Adalat v. Crown P L D 1956 F C 171 rel. (b) Witness -Hostile witness-Evidence of hostile witness always to be considered with caution but not to he excluded entirely-Part of such evidence of fitting in with other evidence may be accepted, even if witness contradicting himself on such point-Evidence of hostile witness before committing Court transferred to trial Court-Not by itself sufficient for conviction of accused unless .supported by other evidence on record-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 288. The evidence of a hostile witness shall always be considered with-great caution, because of its inherent defects. It is true that the evidence of a hostile witness should not be excluded entirely from consideration and that part of the evidence which fits in with ether evidence on record should be accepted,, even though on that point . the Witness had contradicted himself. The evidence being contradictory and the witness being untrustworthy, it is for the Court to decide whether the whole of the evidence of the witness should be rejected or the portion which fits in with the probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case should be accepted and how much weight should be given on that evidence. In such circumstances if on scrutiny the Court finds other evidence on…