Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.425 of 1979, heard on 26th March, 1985.

---S.165-A--Evidence, appreciation of--Benefit of doubt--Accused allegedly offered bribe to Police Officer in presence of two public witnesses, per chance present at police station, in connection with some case--No independent evidence available to corroborate testimony of such witnesses--No implicit reliance, held, could be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of such interested witnesses--Accused given benefit of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.

Yusuf Ali Khan, Bar-at-Law for Appellant.

Saleem Shad for the State.

Date of hearing: 26th March, 1985.

This Criminal Appeal arises from the judgment of learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption., whereby he on 11-4-1979 convicted Saif Ullah appellant under section 165-A, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof further '...I: for 3 months.

2. The appellant is a private person. The charge against him was that he offered Rs.600/- as illegal gratification to Muhammad Azam ASI, P.W.4 for the release. of Ghulam Muhammad and others. He denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

3. To prove its case, prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Muhammad Nawaz P.W.1 had drawn up formal FIR. Muhammad Azam ASI P.W.4 appeared to prove that the appellant had offered him Rs.600/- as illegal gratification for the release of Ghulam Muhammad and others. Haji Ghulam Rasul and Umar Hayat were produced as eye-witnesses of the occurrence.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P. C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. In defence he examined 3 witnesses.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that Haji Ghulam Rasul and Umar Hayat being under the influence of police, are not reliable. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that it is not a case of raid; that Muhammad Azam A.SI, being highly interested in the result of the prosecution is not an independent witness; that Haji Ghulam Rasul and Umar Hayat had also gone to police station in connection with some cases and as such were under the influence of the police and that in the peculiar circumstances of the case prudence requires independent corroboration of the statements made by Ghulam Rasul, Umar Hayat and Muhammad Azam P.Ws. which is lacking. That being the position, I am of the view that it would not be in accordance with the safe administration of justice to place implicit reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of these witnesses.

7. For what has been stated above, giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

S.G.D./S-84/L

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.