Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 244 of 1968, decided on 3rd February 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th June 1968, in Criminal Appeal No. 478 of 1967/Murder Reference No. 97 of 1967).
S. 302‑‑Conviction cannot be based on solitary testimony of approver unless corroborated by independent evidence both as to commission of crime and implication of accused therein‑Recovery of crime weapons not made in-presence of accused-has no corroborative value Crimimal procedure code(V of 1898).S337
[p. 270]A
Aftab Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
and 2. '‑' _,; a i . r,
Dilawai Mahmood Assistant Advocate‑General West Pakistan instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing : 3rd February 1969.
The first 2 respondents in this case were convicted under section 302/34, P. P. C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, and sentenced to death for the murder of one, Muhammad Khan. The conviction was based entirely upon the evidence of an approver, who was also related to the deceased. The wife of the deceased is the real sister of the wife of the approver. The approver is also the maternal cousin of the deceased. The motive for the crime alleged was that the respondent, Ghauns Muhammad suspected the deceased of having developed illicit relations with his wife, Mst. Sultan Bibi.
It is a well‑settled rule of imprudence that a conviction cannot be based upon the solitary testimony of an approver unless the same is corroborated by some other reliable independent evidence, both as to the commission of the crime and the implication of the accused therein. In the present case, it is frankly conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the only corroboration furnished by the prosecution is of the recoveries of the weapons. But, as pointed out by the High Court; these recoveries are of no value, for, the recoveries were not made in the presence of the respondents. The recoveries were, therefore, of no value. at Ali as a corroborative circumstance, In this view of the matter no just exception can be taken to the view of the High Court that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction of the respondents on the solitary uncorroborated testimony of the approver.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer