In our view, the rationale for making certain statements on fact admissible under Article 19-A of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is on account of spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But such a fact or statement must be part of the same transaction. In other words, such a statement must have been made immediately thereafter. But if there was an interval that was sufficient for fabrication, then the statement is not relevant.
In the cases where the ocular account is not available and circumstantial evidence is produced, it is not mathematically expected in the deposition of the witness’s every explanation. There may be some ups and downs about the information of time and the facts, but the fact remains that the evidence to the extent of the significant event should apply to the prudent mind. It is settled law that the court has to see the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the same. Similarly, when the witnesses of the prosecution are examined in court after a long gap, minor discrepancies, contradictions, and omissions are open in the testimonies of the witnesses. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or embellishments.
Murder Reference No.82 of 2019
(The State versus
Shazam Ali)
Crl. Appeal No.26723-J of 2019
(Shazam Ali versus The State)
Date of hearing: 09.01.2023.
0 Comments