MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Alias ASHRAF Alias ACHHI AND 3 Others vs The STATE
This criminal petition challenged the conviction and three-year sentence of the petitioner under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a criminal conviction could be legally sustained based solely on the testimony of a solitary interested witness. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that there is no inflexible rule of law requiring corroboration for the testimony of an interested witness. The Court clarified that while the testimony of an interested witness must be scrutinized, it does not require the same level of corroboration as that of an accomplice. Corroboration may be derived from any circumstances of the case that satisfy the Court of the witness's veracity, specifically regarding whether innocent persons were falsely implicated. The Court emphasized that the sufficiency of corroboration depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual case. In this matter, the witness's testimony was found credible and sufficiently supported by medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained and other corroborating circumstances, warranting no interference with the lower court's findings.
- Can a criminal conviction be based solely on the testimony of a solitary interested witness?
- Does the testimony of an interested witness require the same degree of corroboration as that of an accomplice?
- What constitutes sufficient corroboration for the testimony of an interested witness?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner has challenged the validity of his conviction and sentence of 3 years' rigorous imprisonment under section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. It has been contended that his conviction could not be legally based upon the evidence of a solitary interested witness viz. Karam Din.
3. According to the medical evidence Karam Din received no less than 8 grievous injuries with some sharp-edged weapon. This fully supports Karam Din's evidence that he was injured 11 times with hatchets by the petitioners. The evidence of motive also lends support to his evidence.
4. We are unable to accept the broad proposition that no con--viction can be based on the solitary evidence of an interested witness. This view is not supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Nazir v. State (PLD 1962 SC 269) as claimed on behalf of the petitioners. In the case under report it has been held that there can never be an inflexible rule that the statement of an `interested' witness can never be accepted without corroboration. Besides it has been held in the case under report that for corroboration it is not necessary that there should be the word of an independent witness supporting the story put forward by an interested witness. Corroboration may be afforded by anything in the circum--stances of a case which tends sufficiently to satisfy the mind of the Court that the witness has spoken the truth. What circum--stances will be sufficient as- corroboration it is not possible to lay down. But, as the question before the Court would be whether some innocent person had not been implicated in addition to those who were guilty the circumstance relied upon must have a bearing on this question. In the case of an interested witness the corroboration need not be of the same probative force as in the case of an accomplice for the two do not stand on the same footing.
5. It is thus evident that it depends upon the facts and circum--stances of a particular case whether the solitary witness should be believed or not. In the instant case all the three Courts have believed the witness whose evidence, as we have already noticed, has received corroboration from other reliable evidence.
6. The First Information Report was lodged by a stranger and mere delay in lodging it is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Karam Din who had been seriously injured and was not responsible for the delay in lodging the First Information Report.
7. It is a case of mere appreciation of evidence and we see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court.
8. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 24 cases
- Umar Farooq vs The State & another 2025 SHC KHI 1543
- Pauper appellant Ayyaz vs State 2023 SHC 262
- Abdullah vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 387
- Mira Bukhsh vs The State 2023 PCRLJ 233
- Mst. HALEEMA Versus State 2023 MLD 1009
- Fateh Khan and others vs The State and others 2021 P Cr. L J 969
- MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus State 2020 PCrLJN 95
- SHEHZAD AHMED vs ZAFAR alias ZAFRI and 4 others 2019 PCr. L J 1497, 2020 KLR Criminal Cases 101
- Shehzad Ahmed vs Zafar alias Zafri and 4 others 2019 IHC 122
- TAREEN alias BADO and another vs The STATE 2019 P Cr. L J 832
- GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs The STATE 2019 YLR 2037
- ALLAH BUX and another vs The STATE 2018 MLD 534
- MUMTAZ ALI Versus State 2013 YLR 1827
- SALEH MUHAMMAD alias HASHIM MARRI vs The STATE 2013 P Cr. L J 692
- INTIZAR AHMAD alias TAHIRI Versus State 2010 MLD 1879
- NOOR ZAMAN vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 2016
- NOOR ZAMAN Versus State 2005 PCrLJ 2016
- ASGHAR alias ASGHARI Versus THE STATE 2005 PCRLJ 97
- KHIZAR HAYAT Versus THE STATE 2004 MLD 172
- RIAZ HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 2001 SCMR 177
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus THE STATE 2001 SCMR 199
- GUL NAWAZ vs THE STATE 1998 P Cr. L J 1730
- Soofi BAQA MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHERs vs THE STATE 1985 PLD Sh. C (A J & K) 18
- Subhan Ullah Khan son of Rozamin Khan vs The State through A.A.G 2021 PHC 150