Article 16 (QSO) - Accomplice - Judgments

 

Article 16 (QSO) - Accomplice - Judgments

Citation Name  : 2020  PLD  690     LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Mst. RABIA BIBI

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE

Art. 16---Accomplice as witness---Scope---High Court observed that at time there were cases in which criminals commit an offence in such an organized or sophisticated manner that it becomes difficult for the prosecution to track them down or secure the quality of evidence that is required in the court of law to prove charge, therefore, prosecution was constrained to seek the help of an accomplice---Article 16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 expressly declares that an accomplice is a competent witness. Citation Name : 2020 PLD 690 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : Mst. RABIA BIBI Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE Arts. 16 & 129(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.337---High Court (Lahore) Rules & Orders, Chap. 14, Vol. III, R.5---Accomplice---Tender of pardon to accomplice---Corroboration---Scope---Albiet Art. 16 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, makes an accomplice a competent witness, Art.129(b) provides a sort of rider thereto when it enacts that the Court may presume "that an accomplice is unworthy of the credit unless he is corroborated in material particulars."---Rule 5 of Chap. 14, Vol. III, High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, also stipulates that since the evidence of an approver being that of an accomplice is prima facie of a tainted character, it should be scrutinized with utmost care and accepted with caution---Rule 5 adds that as a matter of law, pure and simple, a conviction is not bad merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice but it has become almost a universal rule that conviction cannot be based on the testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated in material particulars---As to the amount of corroboration which is necessary, no hard and fast rule can be laid down; it will depend upon various factors, such as the nature of the crime, the nature of the approver's evidence, the extent of his complicity and so forth---Corroboration is considered not only in respect of the general story of the approver but also in respect of facts establishing the accused's identity and his participation in the crime---No strait jacket formula can be laid down as to the amount of corroboration but it must be in material particulars.

Citation Name : 2020 PCrLJ 776 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ASAD ALI

Side Opponent : State

Arts. 16 & 129(b)---Accomplice---Presumption---Scope--- Evidence of an accomplice is ordinarily regarded suspicious; therefore, extent and level of corroboration has to be assessed keeping in view the peculiar facts and surrounding circumstances of the case.

Citation Name : 2016 PCrLJ 714 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Opponent : State

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM

Ss. 337 & 338---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 201, 302 & 365---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 16---Causing disappearance of evidence, qatl-i-amd and abduction---Accomplice/approver, evidence of---Petitioner was aggrieved of the order passed by Trial Court whereby respondent accused was allowed to appear as approver during pendency of trial---Objection raised by petitioner was that he being co-accused of respondent accused, his case would be prejudiced if she was allowed to become an approver---Validity---As a rule of prudence, statement of approver should not be accepted as gospel truth and such person could not be trusted who had betrayed his or her own comrades---For safe administration of justice, conviction should never be based on the sole testimony of an approver without independent corroboration---Under Art.16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, though conviction could be based on the sole statement of approver, but such was not advisable---Court had the discretion to pardon an accused and allow him to become an approver and in a case of hurt or qatl, if victim or legal heirs had no legal objection then co-accused could not challenge his pardon as he would be given ample opportunity to cross-examine the approver---Order passed by Trial Court was not illegal as respondent accused was pardoned and allowed to become an approver by competent court with the permission of legal heirs---High Court upheld the order passed by Trial Court as the same as well reasoned and legal--- Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2016 PLD 153 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ALTAF UR RAHMAN alias ALTAF

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TANDO ADAM

Ss. 164 & 337---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.16---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 34---Qatl-i-amd---Tender of pardon---Right of accused---evidence of accomplice---Scope---Accused persons were aggrieved of the order passed by Trial Court granting pardon to a co-accused and directing Magistrate to record his statement as approver---Validity---Law nowhere made any exception to statement of an accomplice nor provided an exception to normal procedure of trial when prosecution had a witness to whom pardon had been granted---Credibility and veracity was required to be examined by Trial Court and accused had every right to question credibility of such witness but at due stage and time---Accused would have a fair opportunity of cross-examining such person so as to shatter his credibility and even to question the character thereof---High Court declined to interfere in the matter as mandatory requirement of consent/permission from legal heirs, stood complied with---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2012 PCrLJ 24 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : BAHADER KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 9, 10, 18, 24 & 32---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.16 & 129(b)---Corruption and corrupt practices---Reference---Appreciation of evidence---Testimony of approver---Scope---Case was not investigated fairly and faithfully; it looked as if actual players had been let off and only figureheads had been brought forth to bear the brunt and entire exercise seemed to be an eye-wash---Neither the maker nor the scribe of the F.I.R. having been examined, nothing could be proved against any accused---Very first link, connecting accused with the crime, could not be held to have been proved on the record---Person who charged the accused being an approver, his testimony could not be relied upon, unless same was corroborated in material particulars---Other persons who implicated the accused and described his activity in connection with the preparation of pensionary documents in question, being approvers, their testimony, would not have much probative worth---Conviction in some cases though, could be recorded on the testimony of such witnesses, but rule of prudence, which had crystallized into a rule of law, required that, it alone could not be made basis for conviction, unless it was corroborated by independent, impartial and unimpeachable source---No such corroborative evidence of that nature was found on the record---Approvers could corroborate each other, but their testimony being tainted, could not be termed as unimpeachable in any sense of the word---Even otherwise one tainted piece of evidence, could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence---Evidence of approvers was to be excluded, especially when it was presumed to be unworthy of credit under Art.129(b) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Conviction and sentences awarded to accused by the Trial Court were set aside and they were acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefits of doubt, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2012 PCrLJ 210 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABDUL RASHEED

Side Opponent : State

S. 164---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.16---Qatl-e-amd---Involvement of accused on the basis of retracted confessional statement of co-accused---Matter was investigated by the Police and Police came to the conclusion that accused was not involved in the murder---When challan was submitted, accused was shown in Column No.2 of the challan---Trial Court by means of impugned order, while relying on Art.16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, joined the accused to face the trial---Complainant had no grievance with regard to placing accused in Column No.2---Prosecution was not expected to lead, or be able to lead, any evidence that would implicate accused in the case---Entire matter against accused emanated from confessional statement made by co-accused, who later on retracted---Even if assumed that co-accused, while appearing as a witness in his own defence, could be regarded as an accomplice-turned approver on behalf of the prosecution against accused, his testimony under Art.16 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, would only be accepted, if corroborated in material particularly by independent evidence---Such would not be the case, since, the prosecution had already concluded that accused was not involved in the offence---Conviction of accused based solely on the evidence of the accomplice, being entirely unsafe, could not come about in such circumstance---Inconvenience and hardship caused to accused by joining him as an accused, must be balanced against the interests of justice---If at the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, Trial Court would come to the conclusion that there was independent corroborative evidence forthcoming against accused, then it could after giving an opportunity of hearing to accused, consider joining him as an accused in the case---Impugned order was set aside and accused was ordered to be restored to his former position in Column No.2 of the challan.

Citation Name : 2011 YLR 355 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : EHSANULLAH KHAN

Side Opponent : State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/435--Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.16 & 34---Qatl-e-amd and mischief---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Confession---Only evidence in case was in shape of confession of the accomplice, which was inconsistent with her earlier stand; and no corroboration was available of said confession, recorded after a delay of about 2-1/2 years---Such confession of accomplice, without any corroboration, would not be sufficient to record conviction in the matter---Extra judicial confession, otherwise was a weak type of evidence and on the basis of such evidence, there were hardly any chances that same would help the case of prosecution---In the present case it was yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording evidence that accomplice, who had been changing her statements, version and making inconsistent statements, could be termed as trustworthy witness; or conviction could be based on her sole statement---Case of accused needing probe/inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances. 

Citation Name : 2009 PLD 549 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ALTAF ASHRAF

Side Opponent : State

Art. 16---Evidence---Testimony of approver or accomplice, 'assessment of---Principle---Evidence of an approver or accomplice cannot be accepted for convicting a co-accused, unless the same is corroborated by other cogent and reliable evidence in material particulars.