Scribd
Upload
367 views3 pages

Detailed Note On The Role of Accomplice Under The Qanoon

Uploaded by

HAIDER ALI PRODUCTION
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
367 views3 pages

Detailed Note On The Role of Accomplice Under The Qanoon

Uploaded by

HAIDER ALI PRODUCTION
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Detailed Note on the Role of Accomplice under the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order,

1984 of Pakistan

Introduction

The concept of "accomplice" plays a vital role in criminal law, especially in the admission of
testimony and evidence during trials. While the term "accomplice" is not explicitly defined in the
Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order (QSO) 1984 of Pakistan, its implications are drawn from several legal
provisions. These are found both in the QSO 1984 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
1898. The Federal Shariat Court has provided an interpretation of the word "accomplice" in its
ruling in Haider Hussain vs. Govt. of Pakistan, stating that an accomplice is a co-accused or
associate involved in the commission of a criminal act.

Definition and Legal Context

In the ordinary sense, an accomplice refers to a person who voluntarily participates in the
commission of a criminal offense. According to the Federal Shariat Court, an accomplice can be
seen as a co-accused who can be charged jointly with the other accused. This definition
emphasizes the active involvement of the accomplice in the criminal act, making them liable
alongside the primary offender.

Accomplice and QSO 1984

The Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984, through Article 16 and Article 129 (illustration b),
addresses the role of an accomplice as a witness. However, these two provisions might appear
conflicting at first glance.

1. Article 16 of QSO 1984:


o Text: "An accomplice shall be a competent witness against an accused person,
except in the case of an offence punishable with hadd; and a conviction is not
illegal merely because it proceeds upon the uncorroborated testimony of an
accomplice."
o Interpretation: This article establishes that an accomplice is considered a
competent witness in criminal trials, except in cases involving hadd punishments
(those under Islamic law). It also clarifies that a conviction based on the
uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is not inherently illegal, meaning that
the court may rely solely on such testimony for a conviction in cases involving
tazir offenses (non-hadd crimes).
2. Article 129, Illustration (b) of QSO 1984:
o Text: "An accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material
particulars."
o Interpretation: This article provides a cautionary rule, implying that the testimony
of an accomplice should generally be viewed with skepticism. The presumption is
that accomplices are untrustworthy unless their evidence is corroborated by
additional material evidence.
Harmonization of Article 16 and Article 129(b)

The apparent conflict between these two provisions is resolved through judicial interpretation.
Article 16 addresses the rule of law, where the accomplice is considered a competent witness,
while Article 129(b) deals with the rule of prudence, advising that accomplice testimony should
be corroborated for reliability. Therefore, the two provisions are not contradictory but rather
complementary. The judiciary has been tasked with balancing these provisions, ensuring that the
testimony of an accomplice can be accepted, but caution is applied through corroboration.

Judicial Precedents and the Principle of Corroboration

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case Federation of Pakistan vs. Muhammad Shafi
Muhammadi (SCMR 932), emphasized the need to harmonize seemingly conflicting
provisions. The Court concluded that an accomplice’s testimony can be the basis for a
conviction, but the courts should prefer corroboration in material particulars due to the risk of
false testimony.

The principle of corroboration is important because accomplices, in their effort to gain leniency
or shift blame, may provide biased or false testimony. The Indian Supreme Court, in Sarwan
Singh vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1957 SC 673), introduced a double-test rule for accomplice
evidence:

 The testimony of the accomplice must be reliable and trustworthy.


 The testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence that strengthens the
accomplice's account.

Accomplice in Tazir and Hadd Offenses

The distinction between tazir and hadd offenses is crucial in determining the admissibility of an
accomplice’s testimony:

1. Tazir Offenses:
o These are discretionary punishments decided by the judge and not fixed under
Islamic law. In tazir offenses, an accomplice is considered a competent witness,
and their testimony can lead to a conviction, even if uncorroborated (as per
Article 16 of QSO 1984).
2. Hadd Offenses:
o These offenses carry fixed punishments prescribed under Islamic law. In such
cases, an accomplice cannot be pardoned, and their testimony may not be
admissible in the same way as in tazir cases.

Pardon and Testimony of an Accomplice

Under Section 337 of the CrPC 1898, an accomplice may be tendered a pardon in exchange for
their testimony against greater offenders. This provision allows the prosecution to offer leniency
to an accomplice who is willing to disclose all information regarding the offense and cooperate
with the prosecution. This is only applicable in tazir offenses, where the testimony of an
accomplice is admissible as evidence against other co-accused.

Conclusion

An accomplice under QSO 1984 is a competent witness in cases involving tazir offenses, and a
conviction may rest upon uncorroborated testimony. However, Article 129(b) advises that the
court should be cautious and require corroboration of accomplice testimony to ensure its
reliability. In hadd offenses, an accomplice’s testimony is treated differently, and they cannot be
pardoned. Thus, the QSO 1984 and judicial precedents provide a framework where the evidence
of an accomplice, while admissible, should be scrutinized with caution, especially when the
testimony is uncorroborated.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy