CASE ANALYSIS OF LANDMARK JUDGMENT: KHIZAR HAYAT V STATE – FALSUS IN UNO, FALSUS IN OMNIBUS – HOW IT CHANGES THE LANDSCAPE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Muhammad Aneeq Ali,

International Islamic University Islamabad (IIUI)

Name of parties

· Mr. Ch. Nusrat Javed Bajwa, ASC along with Khizar Hayat, Police Constable in person.

· Mr. Ahmed Raza Gillani, Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab & Mr. Munir Ahmed, S.I.

In the court

The Supreme Court of Pakistan

Judges

· Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, CJ;

· Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhek;

· Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah

Issue involved

Whether the doctrine ‘Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus’ is applicable or not in Criminal Justice System.

Citation

Khizar Hayat v State - PLD 2019 SC 527

Appeal No.

Criminal Application No. 209 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 238-L of 2013

Date of hearing

04/03/2019

13.  Introduction:

This brief case analysis aims at observing the status of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus decided by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa in a landmark judgment Khizar Hayat v State. This analysis focuses on implication of the doctrine in criminal justice, the perjury a heinous crime and the importance of credibility of a witness.

Case overview:

The trial of the case has commenced after FIR filed against Muhammad Ilyas and some others who have been accused of the murder of Muhammad Asif. The trial court has decided against Muhammad Ilyas (the accused) and sentenced with death penalty. The convict filed an appeal in the High Court for reversal of the sentence by taking ground that testimony of the witness on the basis of which he has been punished is incredible. The high court taking into account the incredible testimony against the convict, has converted the death sentence into life imprisonment. After dissatisfied with the ruling of both the courts, the convict filed an appeal in the apex court – the supreme court of Pakistan where the case is finally decided by a bench including the chief justice Asif Saeed Khosa in favour of Muhammad Ilyas.

Significance of the judgment:

The court clarifies the status of the doctrine by analyzing from the both Islamic and Historic perspectives and instructed the inevitable implication of doctrine in criminal justice. So, the judgment is considered a landmark judgment due to its broad explanation of the doctrine which has the potential to change the landscape of criminal justice.

Contradictory facts of the case:

• The incident is occurred at night and the source of light is mentioned in the FIR and Site-Plan. But the same was not found by the investigating agency.

• Khizar Hayat – the cousin of the deceased gave testimony as eyewitness. But the court rejected his testimony as the official record placing him in Lahore (hundred miles away from the incident) during the incident.

• Boota has claimed that he was also present with Khizar Hayat when the incident occurred, but this claim was also inconsistent with his statement and medical evidence.

• The post-mortem examination report and the inquest report suggests the murder may have been commited before the reported time.

• These facts suggests the incredible testimony on account of Khizar Hayat and Boota.

Issued framed:

The court observed that the problem lies in the inapplicability of rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus in criminal cases. The court has to decide the status of rule after extensive study of the history and development of this rule in criminal justice system, its incapability in Pakistan was discussed through case law which ecplores the court’s approach to the rule and Islamic provisions on perjury were analyzed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The inapplicability of the doctrine has emboldened witnesses in criminal trials to lie, hindering the courts in finding the truth and delivering justice. So, it was the dire need to decide the actual status  of the rule.

Discussion of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus doctrine – Its meaning:

The phrase "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" in Latin indicates that if someone is dishonest about one thing, they are likely dishonest about everything. The rule implies that once a person lie about any matter of fact, the assumption that he will not lie about another matter of fact, fails. Trust in a witness's testimony must be wholehearted and complete. The initial regulation required compliance and believed that the testimony of someone caught lying was completely useless and had to be dismissed.[i]

History of doctrince

John Henry Wigmore, an American jurist and former Dean of Northwestern Law School, traced the rule of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus back to the Stuart treason trials of the 17th century. In various trials from that time period, it was argued that if a witness was proven false in one aspect, their entire testimony should be doubted. Barbara Shapiro notes that this principle was also advised to the Justices of the Peace in the early 17th century. By the early 19th century, English judges were telling juries they could choose to disbelieve a witness who lied about a material fact. In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court endorsed a mandatory version of the rule in 1822. The principle was applied in the O. J. Simpson murder trial, where the judge instructed jurors that a witness who lied about a material fact should be distrusted in other aspects of their testimony. Thus, the doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus was a broadly recognized principle in legal proceedings, emphasizing the importance of witness credibility in court.

Application of the doctrine in Pakistan

In the case of Ghulam Muhammad and others v Crown (PLD 1951 Lahore 66) in Pakistan, the rule was initially deemed not applicable. Chief Justice Muhammad Munir authored the judgment. There are many other cases decided by the apex court which did not regard the doctrine in the jurisdiction of Pakistan.

Muhammad Munir, CJ. in the case of Ghulam Muhammad and others v Crown (PLD 1951 Lahore 66) argued against the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, noting a tendency in witnesses in Punjab to mix truth with falsehood. Despite no mention of this tendency in other parts of the country, his argument was applied nationwide without discussion in subsequent cases. Munir believed a judge's role was to discover the truth, contrary to our criminal justice system where the investigating agency finds the truth, and the judge determines if the allegations are proven.

Why Perjury a serious crime:

Perjury is a declared very serious crime in Pakistan, as delineated in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. Chapter XI of the PPC is addressing offences related to perjury and false testimony. This demonstrates the seriousness with which giving false testimony is viewed by lawmakers and reflects the will of the legislature, representing the people of Pakistan. The code contains severe punishments for those found guilty of providing false evidence.

The rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is considered impractical in this country, which may lead to perjury, a serious offence. The court cannot allow actions prohibited by law. Judgments suggest that social conditions influence this decision, as witnesses in criminal cases may not always tell the complete truth and may distort facts. Disbelieving all testimony due to one false statement could result in a real criminal escaping justice. This approach, influenced by external factors, is arbitrary and subjective, potentially harming the rule of law and justice in criminal cases. It is important to uphold the truth and prevent perjury despite these challenges.

Islamic Perspective of the doctrine

In the case of Ghulam Sikandar, it was established that in Islamic Jurisprudence, if a witness is found false regarding one accused, their credibility in implicating other accused in the same incident is compromised. This rule may change when analysed in light of Islamic Principles, particularly the verses of the Holy Qur'an addressing giving testimony. The credibility of a witness is crucial in the administration of criminal justice. Let’s account some notable verses from Holy Quran that emphasizes the necessity of credible testimony and make it prerequisite for faith. Conversely, Islam prohibits to conceal the truth or give false testimony as it may lead to injustices. So, it’s the individual’s duty to ascertain whether the particular piece on information is true or not and especially while adjudication, due diligence must be paid to check the credibility of witness. The doctrine is a standard of care for the fulfilment of obligation imposed by Islam.

• “O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just, that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is acquainted with what you do”[ii]

• “So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, acquainted”[iii]

• “And avoid false statement”[iv]

These verses are not the exhaustive text of Islamic Law that impose the obligation to ascertain the truth but there are also a number of verses and Hadith of Holy Prophet (PBUH) that focus the same.

15. Decision of the court

The court instructed if a court determines that a witness has intentionally lied about an important point, they will be prosecuted for perjury without exception.

16. Conclusion

It seemed that, the courts in Pakistan tends not to regard the doctrine but after the pronouncement of this landmark judgment, it becomes necessary for courts to consider the perjury a serious crime and upheld the doctrine while adjudicating. Diving into the depth of Islamic Law and accessing the harsh consequences of perjury, the court strictly adhere to the integrity of doctrine.

After critically analyses the judgment, my opinion suggests that the reasoning on the basis of which perjury is governed as a serious crime is that a legal system that allows intentional lies is bound to collapse, and a community that accepts it is set to destroy itself. Justice is built on truth, serving as the solid base for a civilized society; therefore, sacrificing truth means jeopardizing the future of fairness and civilization in a society. The legal system has been greatly affected by the mentioned acceptable disregard for the truth and it is high time to correct this significant error with utmost sincerity. Hence, considering the aforementioned discussion. According to the provisions of constitution, the courts in Pakistan are bound to uphold the precedent and decide cases accordingly.

References

[i] John Henry Wigmore, A Treatise On The Anglo-American System Of Evidence In Trials At Common Law (1940)

[ii] Surah Al-Ma’idah: verse 8

[iii] Surah An-Nisa: verse 135

[iv] Surah Al-Haj: verse 30