Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Perjury is not allowed in the court of law

PLJ 1985 SC 448 [Appellate Jurisdiction]
versus THE STATE—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1982, heard on 2-2-1985.
(i)  Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of i860)—
------- S. "02 read with Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Art. 185—Murder—Offence of - Conviction for — Punishment— Deceased allegedly committing murder of father of appellant about 12/13 years before oc-9iirrence— Revenge, however, taken by appellant only attaining age of15 years—Held : Sentence of appellant to be reduced from death to imprisonment for life—Sentence of fine, however, being inadequate, same enhanced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 25,000. [Pp. 450 & 451J/4
(ii)  Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of I860)-
——S 195—Perjury—Offence of—Court—Duty to award diterrerent punishment—Held : Persons deliberately telling lie iq, courts of law to be awarded deterrent punishment so as to serve as warning to others in order to minimise litigation in courts. [P. 450]5
(iii)  Pakistan Penal Code, I860 (XLV of I860)—
----- S. 195—Perjury—Offence of—Court—Duty of—Witnesses appear­ing in court of law very often making bleatently  alse statements against other persons even in cases involving death sentance—Held : Court to take serious notice in case  f witness deliberately perjuring himself. [P. 451]C  
Mr Ijaz Hussain Bata/vi, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. M. A, Zafar. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
Mr. Amar Raza A. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mr. Walayat Umar Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Complainant.
Mr. S M. Zubair, A. A. Q. Punjab a,nd Mr. Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate«on-Record for State.
Date of bearing: 2-2-1985,
Aslam Riaz Hussaio, J.-~This appeal by Muhammad Aslam is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16-6-1980, dismissing his appeal in a murder case.
2.           Muhammad Aslam appellant was accused of the murder of his ownuncle Mehdi Hassan.   .The motive for the murder is stated to be that when he was a young boy of 2/3 years of age, his farther Hadi Hassan, disappeared and was suspected to have been murdered by his step-brother Mehdi Hassan (deceased) in the present case. When ths appellant grew up to be about 15/16 years old, he murdered Mehdi Hassan to avenge his father's death.
3.   The  facts of the  prosecution  case,    briefly  stated,  are that  on 25-7-1974 at 12 noon Mehdi Hassan deceased was   in^in a   Tonga along- with Muhammad Hussain, Muhammad Naseem and Abdus Sattar, P. Ws. When they reached  ear Basti Jammunwala.  Muhammad  Aslam appellant came from behind  on  a horse,  with  a gun  in  his hand, and  hrew  a, challenge to  the  deceased  that' he  would  take  revengj  of his  father's murder  Abdus Sattar who  as driving the Tonga   stopped  it  and alighted from  it. Muhammad Hussain and  Muhammad  Naseem  P. Ws. .who were sitting in  the  Tonga also  got  down,  and  stepped  aside.  Mehdi  Hasan deceased,  however, did not   move.   uhammad Aslam appellant fired a shot at him killing him on   the spot  and  then  left,    alongwith  the gun, saying that he  ad taken revenge of his fa.ther'3 murder.  The   matter wasto imprisonment for life. We, however, feel that the sentence of fine imposed on him is inadequate. Therefore, after hearing his counsel on this point, we enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 25,000 In default of payment of fine he shall suffer further R. 1. for 5 years If recovered the fine shall be paid as compensation to the hiirs of the deceased.With the above modifications the appeal stands partly allowed.
9.    Before  parting  with  the    matter,    it    may    be   mentioned that Muhammad Hussain P. W. 8 committed perjury by concealing certain facts before a Court of law.   We, therefore,  issued   him  a  notice  on   82-1982. He appeared today  in  response to the said notice and was represented   by Mr. Aamar Raza A. Khan, Advocate.On being questioned he admitted before us that Mst, Asia was his sister, but he added that she was his step-sister. He also admitted that she was married to Rana Suleman Khan, Advocate When asked why he had told a lie in the trial Court, he merely prayed that he should be par­doned.
10.   We are not satisfied with this plea and  are strongly  of the view that persons who deliberately tell a lie in  Courts  of   aw  and  are  proved to have committed this offence should be  awarded  deterrent  punishment so as to serve as a warning to  thers   in  order to  minimise  the  litigation n Courts.We have been noticing over the years that very often witn-ssesappearing in Courts of law make blatently false statements against other persons, even in cases involving the death sentence The reason for this, we feel, is that a general impression prevails in the public that one can tell lies on oath in Courts of law with complete impunity. This impressior, is strengthened by the fact that even persons who are held by the Court to be false witnesses are hardly even prosecuted. This in turn further encourages the tendency to make false statements in Courts which ha-rcsulted in undermining public faith in the existing judicial systsm We, therefore, feel that serious notice should al\vays be taken by the Courts whenever it is apparent from the record that a witness has deli­berately perjured himself.
11.   We may also mention here that Ashiq AH   D. W. 1 who appeared as a defence witness also found by  the  learned  trial  Court  to have  com­ mitted perjury.   It may be noticed that the learned trial Court has observed at p. 37 of the printed   book   (line 12)  that  the hxplanation   put   forward by Ashiq Aii D. W. 1, was an afterthought, coined to attempt  to save  thelife of his  nephew  Muhammad  Aslara.   it  is   urther  observed   by  the life of bis nephew Muhammad Asiam. It is further observed by the learned trial Court at p. 43 (line 18 of the printed book) that :— " .... He has tried  to  save  Muhammad  Aslam  accused  not by extending forgiveness but by telling a lie  We, therefore, feel that the learned trial Court should have   taken action against him as well.
12.          As a result of the above observation we direct that the learned trial Court should proceed against P. W. it (Muhammad  Husiam; aud D. W. 1 (Ashiq All) under   section 476, Cr. P. C.  and  consider  prosecu­ting them for offence under section 195, Cr. P. C,
Appeal dismissed,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at internationallawyerinfo@gmail.com

Salman Yousaf Khan
International Lawyer