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 Revision Application No. 113 of 1972, decided on 23rd December 1974.
‑‑ S. 6, illus. (a)‑‑Relevancy of facts forming part of same transac tion‑Declaration or statement must be substantially contem poraneous.
It is true that there are many incidents which, though not constituting a fact in issue, may be regarded as forming a part of it, in the sense that they are closely accompanied and explained that fact. However, these declarations accompanying an act are subject to three qualifications : (1) they must not be made at such an interval as to allow of fabrication, or to reduce them to the mere narrative of a past event ; (2) they must relate to and can only be used to explain the act they accompany, and not independent facts prior or subsequent thereto ; and (3) though admissible to explain or corroborate, they are not, in general, to be taken as a proof of the truth of the matter stated ; they are consequently not in any strict sense to be classed as exceptions to the hearsay rule. These must therefore, be substan tially contemporaneous to show that the same were spontaneous and un-designed. If the transaction had terminated and then the statement is made, it will be irrelevant ; the admissibility being dependent on continuity. The test is sufficiency of connection.
Halsbury, 2nd Edn., Vol. 13, para. 620 ref.
‑‑ S. 304‑A‑Rash and negligent driving‑Mere driving with speed on a clear road may not constitute rashness but same cannot be said when vehicle is driven with speed on road which is not clear and while the vehicle is on the wrong side of the road.
A man driving at a speed of 70 miles an hour on a clear road, would not be rash and negligent, but that cannot be said about the same person even at a speed of 20 miles an hour, in another situation.
In the instant case, the applicant should have realised that he was on the out‑skirts of a town and the road was not totally deserted. All the same he was driving at speed and the prosecution evidence is that the accident took place while he was on the wrong side of the road.
Muhammad Sadiq v. The State P L D 1958 Kar. 445 ; Muhammad Hussain v. The State P L D 1965 Lah. 608 and Umrao Khan and another v. Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and another P L D 1965 Pesh. 104 considered.
Muhammad Hayat Junejo for Appellant.
Murtaza Hussain for A: G. for the State.
Dates of hearing : 12th, 13th and 16th December 1974.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer