Case Details

Citation(s)
1968 SLG 97 1968 SLD 97 1968 PLD 96
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 1967, decision dated: 20th December 1967. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th April 1967, in Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 1966/Murder Reference No. 97 of 1966).
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J., FAZLEAKBAR AND MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, JJ
Muhammad Nadir, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Major Mufti Nazar Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Conviction for murder-Refusal of all eye-witnesses to support prosecution case-Leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to re-examine evidence-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58 (3). (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1960), S. 302-Murder-Foundation of accusation against accused confined almost wholly to ocular evidence-Eye-witnesses making conflicting statements, as to essential facts, at different stages of trial---Court has discretion to rely on either of two versions-Rejecting one of two statements, Court should however seek for an explanation for holding that variation had been introduced at trial in bad faith. A witness who has made conflicting statements as to essential facts constituting a crime is, prima facie, unworthy of reliance, in respect of all his statements. Cases are not unknown where witnesses have departed from earlier versions given by them, also on oath, for bona fide reasons, i.e., reasons which are foreign to a mere desire to divert the 'course of justice, from personal or venial motives. In the exercise of the discretion which the law allows, a Sessions Court may reject a witness's statement made before it, and may instead rely on a different. statement, made earlier, in the committing Court, on oath and under the liability to cross-examination, but for the judicial exercise of such discre­tion, it is necessary that the circumstances, should be examined with thoroughness, and apart from other considerations, such as the presence of other reliable evidence, an explanation should be found for holding that the variation has been introduced at the trial in bad faith. Such an explanation has necessarily to be offered by the prosecution when it seeks reliance upon one of two varying depositions, for otherwise the Court would have no firm indication as to which version lies closer to the truth, in cases, where the foundation of the accusation is confined, almost wholly, to the ocular evidence. Alim v. State P L D 1967 S;C 307 ref. JUDGMENT CORNELIUS, C. J.-Leave was granted to the appellant, Ghulam Muhammad on a Jail Petition to appeal against his conviction and sentence of death for the murder of one Mst. Jindan…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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