Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Trap Witness: Citation Name: Side Appellant: MUHAMMAD AYUB Side Opponent: THE STATE

    Uploaded by

    Atif Ashraf
    11 views1 page
    The appellant Muhammad Ayub was accused of bribery by the State. A key witness for the prosecution, the Raiding Magistrate, claimed to have seen and heard the exchange of bribe money between Ayub and the complainant from an adjoining room, however the complainant stated that a curtain hung in front of the door between the rooms, contradicting the Magistrate's account. As there was an inconsistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses that created reasonable doubt, and the acceptance of bribe money by Ayub was rendered highly doubtful, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

    Original Description:

    Benefit of doubt--A single infirmity in statement of a witness, capable of creating doubt in a reasonable mind

    Original Title

    case law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The appellant Muhammad Ayub was accused of bribery by the State. A key witness for the prosecution, the Raiding Magistrate, claimed to have seen and heard the exchange of bribe money between Ayub and the complainant from an adjoining room, however the complainant stated that a curtain hung in front of the door between the rooms, contradicting the Magistrate's account. As there was an inconsistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses that created reasonable doubt, and the acceptance of bribe money by Ayub was rendered highly doubtful, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views1 page

    Trap Witness: Citation Name: Side Appellant: MUHAMMAD AYUB Side Opponent: THE STATE

    Uploaded by

    Atif Ashraf
    The appellant Muhammad Ayub was accused of bribery by the State. A key witness for the prosecution, the Raiding Magistrate, claimed to have seen and heard the exchange of bribe money between Ayub and the complainant from an adjoining room, however the complainant stated that a curtain hung in front of the door between the rooms, contradicting the Magistrate's account. As there was an inconsistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses that created reasonable doubt, and the acceptance of bribe money by Ayub was rendered highly doubtful, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    Citation Name : 1985 PCRLJ 2687

    LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AYUB


    Side Opponent : THE STATE

    Pakistan Penal Code ---S. 161--Bribery--[trap -case]--Benefit of doubt--A single infirmity in


    statement of a witness, capable of creating doubt in a reasonable mind, held, sufficient to give
    benefit of doubt to accused--Raiding Magistrate claiming to have seen accused receiving bribe
    money and also hearing talk between them while sitting in .adjoining room whereas complainant
    clearly stating that a curtain was hanging in front of door between two rooms--Contradiction
    between statements of such prosecution witness es, held further, could not be termed as minor
    and rendered acceptance o' allege bribe money by accused highly doubtful--Accused given benefit
    of doubt and acquitted, in circumstances.

    You might also like