| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1959 SLG 4428 = 1959 SLD 4428 = 1959 PLD 662 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Criminal Appeal No. J-260 of 1959, decided on 25th August 1959.
Presented By: Inamullah and Illahi Bakhsh Khamisani, JJ
Muhammad Sulleman Qureshi and Ghulam Sarwar Brohi for Appellants. Zahoor ul Haq for
Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. J-260 of 1959, decided on 25th August 1959.
Presented By: Inamullah and Illahi Bakhsh Khamisani, JJ
Muhammad Sulleman Qureshi and Ghulam Sarwar Brohi for Appellants. Zahoor ul Haq for
Respondents.
YARU and others-Appellants
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)
Section: 114,133
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 164,364
(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 114 & 133, illus. (b)-Approver's evidence- Corroboration in minor particulars or incidental details-- Does not afford necessary assurance for conviction of accused. An approver is undoubtedly a competent witness under the Evidence Act. His evidence, however, cannot be acted upon as a rule of prudence unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. The reason for this caution is that the approver has participated in the commission of the offence himself. It would not be safe to act upon such evidence merely because it is corroborated in minor particulars or incidental details. In such a case corroboration does not afford the necessary assurance for conviction. Bhuboni Sahu v. The King P L D 1949 P C 90 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 164 & 364 --Retracted confession how far can be used to corroborate statement of approver. Abdul Majid v. The State P L D 1957 Lah. 77; Muhammad Ramzan v. The State P L D 1957 Lah. 955 and Rafique Ahmed v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 317 ref. Date of hearing: 25th August 1959. JUDGMENT INAMULLAH, J.-The appellants have been convicted under section 302 read with section 34 P. P. C. for having caused the death of one Mohram along with the approver Akan. The appellant Yaru was sentenced to death while the other two appellants Mithalshah and Muhram were sentenced to transporta tion for life. Besides the appeal of Yaru the matter is also before us for confirmation of his death sentence. The other two appellants filed separate appeals which is Criminal Appeal No. 282 of 1959. We propose to dispose of both the appeals by this judgment. The facts are these The deceased Mohrum was on friendly terms with the appellant Yaru and approver Akan. Yarn suspected Mohrum to be carrying on with his niece Mst. Basran, wife of one Abdullah. Yaru resented this intimacy with his niece and threatened to take revenge. This threat was carried by the approver Akan to the deceased Mohrum. Mohrum, however, did not take any notice of the threat and said that Yaru would, do…