Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 3142 2002 SLD 3142 2002 PLD 152
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal A.T. Appeals Nos. 43 and 50 of 2000, Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 46 of 2000, Dated: 30th October, 2000.
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, CHIEF, JUSTICE, SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY AND WAHID BUX BROHI, JJ
Azizullah K. Sheikh, Khawaja Naveed Ahmad, Saadia Abbasi, Saleem Zia, Muhammad Nehal Hashmi, Arshad Khan Jadoon and Fahim Riaz Siddiquei for Appellant (in Sp1.Cr.A.T. Appeal No.43 of 2000). Raja Qureshi, A.G., Sindh, Barrister, Zahoorul Haq, Special Pros

MIAN MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SHARIF AND others

VS

THE STATE AND others

Law:

Section:

(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---.--- ---.----Art. 16---.---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.337---.---Accomplice, evidence of---.---When admissible and can be made the basis of conviction--¬Corroboration---.---Discrepency---.---Principles---.---Doctrine of double test--¬Applicability. The evidence of accomplice is not admissible at all in case of offences punishable as Hadd and Qisas but for an offence punishable as Ta'zir his testimony is admissible and furnishes the basis of conviction provided it is corroborated in material particulars; and in exceptional circumstances the conviction can be founded on the evidence of an accomplice without corroboration if Court is satisfied with truthfulness of his evidence. The doctrine of double test with respect to evidence of accomplice/approver will be subject to rule laid down in Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Shafi Muhammad i, Advocate (1994 SCMR 932). The evidence of accomplice is ordinarily regarded with suspicion but the degree of suspicion varies according to the extent and nature of complicity, as in certain cases he may not be a 'willing participant' for the offence but a victim of it and might have succumbed to pressure for want of firmness to resist the same. As regards the extent and level of corroboration, no hard and fast rule could be laid down in that behalf and the evidence is to be assessed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. The corroborative evidence standing by itself might not be incriminating at all but considered with the story of approver it should produce on the mind of the Court a profound conviction that the accused must have acted in the manner alleged by the approver. The evidence of approver may not cover each and every detail and in case of any discrepancy, the minor discrepancies may not make the entire testimony of the approver unreliable. Federation of Pakistan v. Shafi Muhammad 1994 SCMR 932; Muhammad Ayub Khuhro v. Pakistan PLD 1960 SC 237; Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. Emperor PLD 1947 PC 141; State v. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto PLD 1978 Lah. 523; Ghtjam Qadir v. State PLD 1959 SC (Pak.) 377;, Nur, Ali Ghazi v. State PLD 1962 Dacca 249;, Abdul Majeed v.…
🔒
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