“While discussing the motive part of the case the High Court had observed
that both the eye-witnesses 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.”
Part Of Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal
525-16
2018 LHC 777
0 Comments