Solitary statement of a witness has been examined at first instance in the light of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, (section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872)

 Here we are guided by the dictum of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2001 SCMR 199) wherein, at page 204, it was enunciated as under:-

 “6. …The question as formulated hereinabove as to whether conviction could have been awarded on the basis of solitary statement of a witness has been examined at first instance in the light of Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, (section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872). The said Article is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--

 “17. Competence and number of witnesses.---(1) The competence of a person to testify and the number of witnesses required in any case shall be determined in accordance with the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah. (2) Unless otherwise provided in any law relating to the Enforcement of Hudood or any other special law-- (a) in matters pertaining to financial or future obligations, if reduced to writing, the instrument shall be attested by two men, or one man and two women, so that one may remind the other, if necessary, and evidence shall be led accordingly; and (b) in all other matters, the Court may accept, or act on, the testimony of one man or one woman, or such other evidence as the circumstances of the case may warrant.” 7. A bare perusal would reveal that the language as employed in the said Article 17(1)(b) is free from any ambiguity and no scholarly interpretation is required. The provisions as reproduced hereinabove of the said Article would make it abundant clear that particular number of witnesses shall not be required for the proof of any fact meaning thereby that a fact can be proved only by a single witness “it is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the Legislature were to insist upon plurality witnesses, case where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of Presiding Judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the Court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. The Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact”. (Principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence by M. Monir, page 1458).” 

Part of Judgment

LAHORE HIGH COURT RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI

Criminal Appeal

155-09

2015 LHC 6748