“While discussing the motive part of the case the High Court had observed that both the eyewitnesses had stated about the alleged motive and they had not been cross-examined by the
defence on that aspect of the case and, thus, the alleged motive stood proved. This approach
adopted by the High Court has been found by us to be fallacious inasmuch as it had been
clarified by this Court in the case of S. Mahmood Alam Shah v. The State (PLD 1987 250) that
the principle that a fact would be deem to be proved if the witness stating such fact had not been
cross-examined regarding the same was a principle applicable to civil cases and not to criminal
cases. It was held that a criminal case is to be decided on the basis of totality of impressions gathered from the circumstances of the case and not on the narrow ground of cross-examination
or otherwise of a witness on a particular fact stated by him. A similar view had already been
expressed by this Court in the case of State v. Rab Nawaz and another (PLD 1974 SC 87)
wherein it had been observed that a criminal case is to be decided on the basis of totality of
circumstances and not on the basis of a single element.”
(2018 SCMR 149)
Used in Judgment of:
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal
383-12
0 Comments