Abscondence of accused/appellants for about 13/14 years is another factor which runs.............

2024 YLR 2000

 Abscondence of accused/appellants for about 13/14 years is another factor which runs against the appellants. Abscondence of accused after the occurrence is a relevant fact as per Article 21 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.It is trite that abscondence is always considered as corroborative evidence, though not a sole reason to convict the accused.

Therefore, in the given circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly convicted both the appellants and sentenced them to imprisonment for life under section 302 (b) PPC because both have joint role of firing which is always considered as mitigation.

Crl. Appeal:53656/19

Ihsan Ullah Munshi etc. Vs The State etc

2024 YLR 2000

Deposition of a disbelieved witness in a subsequent trial can be relied upon.

A witness if missed or exaggerated a fact in an earlier trial cannot be termed as untruthful in subsequent trial if his testimony is straight forward and natural. If this be permitted then once some witnesses are disbelieved in an earlier trial their testimony cannot be relied upon in subsequent trial, then the accused later tried would receive a clean chit on the basis of statement earlier made by the said witnesses. Competency of a witness is regulated under Article 3 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.

The first proviso to above Article clearly speaks that only that person shall be prevented to be testified if he is convicted of perjury or giving false evidence. As per 2nd proviso to above Article, even such witness can also be permitted if court is satisfied on his repentance.