| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 428 1995 SLD 428 1995 SCMR 1793 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 237 to 243 of 1994, decided on 12thJuly, 1994.
AJMAL MIAN, SALEEM AKHTAR AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
NaraindasMotiani, Advocate on Record for Appellant (in Cr. A. No.241 of 1994). Muhammad Ibrahim Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate on Record for Appellants. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi. A: G. (Sindh) for the State.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 237 to 243 of 1994, decided on 12thJuly, 1994.
AJMAL MIAN, SALEEM AKHTAR AND MAMOON KAZI, JJ
NaraindasMotiani, Advocate on Record for Appellant (in Cr. A. No.241 of 1994). Muhammad Ibrahim Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Farooqi, Advocate on Record for Appellants. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi. A: G. (Sindh) for the State.
ZAKIR KHAN and others--Appellants
VS
THE STATE --Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 365A/34
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
(a) Penal Code (XVI of 1860) S. 365 A/34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the conviction of the accused persons was warranted by the evidence on record. (b) Witness -- Interested witness Relationship of prosecution witness with the complainant Effect Mere relationship of a prosecution witness with complainant or other prosecution witness cannot render his evidence unreliable unless it is established that he had motive to implicate the accused falsely in the case. The rule laid down by Supreme Court in respect of the evidence of interested witnesses is only a rule of caution. No doubt, judicial authorities are replete with instances where a more cautious approach was preferred by the Courts while dealing with evidence of a partisan witness but support in such case may be sought from other independent evidence. The same would nevertheless depend upon the circumstances of each case. However, mere relationship of a prosecution witness to the complainant or other prosecution witness cannot render his evidence unreliable unless it is established that he had motive to implicate the accused falsely in the case. (c) Evidence Criminal trial Contradiction in the evidence of witness Effect Only material contradictions are to be taken into consideration by the Court while minor discrepancies found in the evidence of witnesses, which generally occur are to be overlooked Principles Mere omission by witness to disclose a certain fact to the Investigating Officer would not render his testimony unreliable unless the improvement made by the witness while giving evidence before the Court, had sufficient probative force to bring home the guilt to the accused. A contradiction, unlike an omission, is an inconsistency between the earlier version of a witness and his subsequent version before the Court. The rule is now well established that only material contradictions are to betaken into consideration by the Court while minor discrepancies found in the evidence of witnesses, which generally occur, are to be overlooked. There is also a tendency on the part of witnesses in this country to overstate…
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