Law:

Section:

(a) Special leave to appeal to Supreme Court-Granted to consider adequacy of corroborative evidence to support evidence of solitary witness of murder, the approver-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 160. (b) Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 133-Approver-Statement of-Rule of prudence-Corroboration-No hard and fast rule­---Approver having no motive to implicate accused, no ground for relaxing standard of corroboration-Evidence of recoveries of weapons of offence and blood-stained clothes considered enough. As a matter of strict law, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could, if accepted, form the basis .of a conviction in a criminal case. However, in the course of judicial precedents, a rule of prudence has been evolved under which it is always insisted that there ought to be independent corroboration of an approver's statement on material points suggesting a link between accused persons and the crime before such a statement could be accepted as a safe foundation for their conviction. The reason for the rule is obvious. There is always danger of substitution of the guilty be the innocent in such cases and it is realised that it would be extremely risky to act upon the statement of a self-confessed criminal who while trying to save his own skin, might be unscrupulous enough to accept suggestions of others to inculpate a person unconnected with the crime in place of his real accomplice for whom he may have a soft corner. But the corroboration required would depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular case and no hard and fast rules can be laid down in this behalf. Surely one of the factors calling for consideration may be the circumstance that the approver had no ostensible motive to involve any of the accused persons falsely in the case. That does not imply any relaxation of normal standards of corroboration in such cases. Evidence of recoveries of blood-stained weapons of offence at the instance of the accused and of blood-stained clothes was considered enough by the High Court as corroborative of the statement of approver, and the Supreme Court, refusing td re-appraise evidence affirmed the of the High Court. Sher Jang v. Emperor A I R 1931…

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