The Supreme Court on Wednesday declared that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) shall be an integral part of Pakistani jurisprudence in criminal cases and the same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all the courts in the country in its letter and spirit.
The judgement authored by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa also directed that a witness found by a court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect shall, without any latitude, invariably be proceeded against for committing perjury. The SC office is ordered to send a copy of this order to the registrars of all the high courts with a direction to send a copy of it to every judge and magistrate within the jurisdiction of each high court handling criminal cases at all levels for their information and guidance.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 238-L of 2013 filed by convict Muhammad Ilyas noted that one of the witnesses Police Constable Khizar Hayat had deposed on oath falsely before the trial court and on the basis of his false testimony Muhammad Ilyas, appellant, had been sentenced to death by the trial court. The Chief Justice summoned Khizar and directed District & Sessions Judge, Narowal, for proceeding against him in accordance with the law.
The judgement noted that according to the traditions of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), false testimony is one of the greater sins. Truth is the foundation of justice and justice is the core and bedrock of a civilised society and, thus, any compromise on truth amounts to a compromise on a society's future as a just, fair and civilised society. "Our judicial system has suffered a lot as a consequence of the permissible deviation from the truth and it is about time that such a colossal wrong may be rectified in all earnestness."
The judgement said that the inapplicability of this rule (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus) in Pakistan was introduced by Chief Justice Muhammad Munir in 1951 at a time when Article 227 of the Constitution was not in the field but after introduction of the said constitutional prohibition the enunciation of law by his lordship in this field, like the infamous doctrine of necessity introduced by his lordship in the constitutional field, may not hold its ground now, as already predicted and foreseen by this Court in the case of Ghulam Sikandar.
The judgement noted that the declaration by this court that the rule is inapplicable in Pakistan is enunciation of a principle of law and has a binding effect. If inapplicability of that rule militates against the injunctions of Islam and if such inapplicability cannot be enacted by the Parliament on account of its repugnance to the injunctions of Islam then this court may not be in a position to introduce such inapplicability through an enunciation of a principle of law or to continue with the same any more.
A court of law cannot grant a licence to a witness to tell lies or to mix truth with falsehood and then take it upon itself to sift grain from chaff when the law of the land makes perjury or testifying falsely a culpable offence. A court also has no jurisdiction to lay down a principle of law when even the Parliament is expressly forbidden by the Constitution from enacting such a principle as law.
The judgement noted that the main reasoning given for not applying the rule in the past relates to the social conditions prevalent in the country. It seems that because it was felt by the superior Courts that generally witnesses testifying in criminal cases do not speak the whole truth and have a tendency to exaggerate or economise with the real facts, there is a danger of miscarriage of justice in the sense that a real culprit may go scot-free if a court disbelieves the whole testimony on account of reaching the conclusion that the testimony was false in some respect.
If there are no other witnesses that would enable justice to be done and there is a fear that someone's right may be lost, it then becomes the individual responsibility of the few available witnesses to testify. Islam not only enjoins giving testimony, it also forbids concealing it because concealing evidence is something that is disapproved in Islam and detested by nature.
Giving false testimony has many evils for it supports falsehood against truth and promotes injustice and aggression against justice. It also effaces fairness and equity and poses danger to public safety and security.
Comments
Comments are closed.