| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2799 = 1962 SLD 2799 = 1962 PLD 269 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1962, decided on 16th April 1962.
Presented By: S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
R. A. Jeremy Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Maqbul Ahmad Attorney for Appellants. M. Anwar Advocate-General West Pakistan (Said Akbar Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent. Dates of hearing : 16th and 20th March 1962.
Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1962, decided on 16th April 1962.
Presented By: S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
R. A. Jeremy Advocate Supreme Court Instructed by Maqbul Ahmad Attorney for Appellants. M. Anwar Advocate-General West Pakistan (Said Akbar Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent. Dates of hearing : 16th and 20th March 1962.
NAZIR AND OTHERS-Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law:
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 12th May 1961, in Criminal Appeal No. 363 of 1960). Words and phrases------"Interested" witness-"One who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused person". Witness-----"Interested" eye-witness-Corroboration, whether necessary"Corroboration" does not necessarily mean "word" of an independent witness, but "anything in circumstances" which tends to satisfy Court that witness has spoken truth"Corroboration" in case of "eye-witness" not necessarily to be of same probative force as in case of an approver-"Corroboration" by "circumstances" : "number" of persons named as culprits consistent with kind of crime committed; persons named, such as were "expected" to join in attack-"Corroboration" may be spelt out of circumstances in regard to some of the accused while not against others-[Niaz v. The State P L D 1960 S C (Pak.) 387 explained.] Held, that there cannot be an inflexible rule that the statement of an "interested" witness can never be accepted without corroboration. By what was said in Niaz v. The State (P L D 1960 S C (Pak.) 387) it was not meant to lay down any rule of law though it explained for the guidance of Courts the Supreme Court's approach to the problem that generally confronts the Courts in cases of crime by violence. There may be an interested witness whom the Court regards as incapable of falsely implicating an innocent person. But he wilt be an exceptional witness and, so far as an ordinary inter ested witness is concerned, it cannot be said that it is safe to rely upon his testimony in respect of every person against whom he deposes. In order, therefore, to be satisfied that no innocent persons are being implicated along with the guilty, the Court will in the case of an ordinary interested witness look for some circumstance that gives sufficient support to his statement so as to create that degree of probability which can be made the basis of conviction. This is what is meant by…