DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO WITNESS TESTIMONY
BEGUM ASMA SIDDIQUA
THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PH ILO SO PHY
TO THE UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES LO NDO N, 1994
ProQuest Number: 11010623
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The qu ality of this repro d u ctio n is d e p e n d e n t upon the q u ality of the copy subm itted.
In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u th o r did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be note d . Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a n o te will in d ica te the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 11010623
Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C op yrig ht of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
A b s t r a c t
T h e th e s is aim s to look into the law o f w itn ess te s tim o n y in P a k i s t a n a n d B a n g l a d e s h . In th e la s t d e c a d e P a k i s t a n h a s l a u n c h e d an I s la m is a tio n p r o g ra m m e a f f e c ti n g m a n y a re a s o f life in c lu d in g w itness testim ony. T he c h a n g es b r o u g h t a b o u t in P a k i s t a n in th e a re a o f w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y t h r o u g h r e c e n t legisla tion from 1979 onw ards are d iscussed, and c o m p a re d with the s ta tu s quo m a in ta in e d in th e sam e a re a by B a n g l a d e s h , form erly E ast Pakistan, for m ore than a century. T h e case law o f b oth c o u n tries are use d as the p rim a ry sou rc e in u n d e rs ta n d in g the d e v e lo p m en t o f the law o f w itness testim ony.
The finding o f the thesis is that although in theory P a k ista n has m oved away from the century old law, it in fact still follow s in practice the old law in a new fram ew ork o f Islam ic law. T his is e v id e n t sp e cia lly as th ere is very little d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n the p r a c t i c e in P a k i s t a n and B a n g l a d e s h . T h e r e a s o n c o u ld be twofold : a) The society in Pakistan is yet not ready to accept the cha n g es b ro u g h t in the n a m e o f Islam or b) the age old law e n u n c ia te d d u rin g the B ritish period in the form o f leg is la tio n , and t h e r e a f t e r p r a c tis e d th r o u g h o u t , was v e ry m u c h I s la m ic . T his thesis is m ostly b u ilt up on the la tte r rationale. T h ro u g h the d is c u s s io n and re fe re n c e to ca se law , the law o f w itn es s testim ony that has evolved so far is also given a c o m p re h en siv e s h a p e .
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Doreen Hinchcliffe for h e r help and assista nc e th ro u g h o u t this study.
I would also like to thank Professor J. S. Read, Dr. Kate Zeberi, Dr. K.
Irvine and Dr. Abdul H aleem o f the School o f O riental and A frican Studies, as well as P rofe ssor Z illu r R a h m a n and the late P ro fe s s o r K.
M o lla o f the R a j s h a h i U n i v e r s i ty fo r t h e i r e n c o u r a g e m e n t and assistance in c o m p le tin g my study.
T h a n k s are due to all my friends for every k in d o f a s s u ra n c e I re c e iv e d fro m th em , in p a r t i c u l a r Mr. A h m a d H. B u a n g o f the U niversity o f M alaya. A lso th an k s are due to Chris, A nne, T y e b a , Z a h ra and Y asm ine for th e ir tim e and affection. T hanks also to the m any others who supported me, too n um erous to m ention here.
I could not have com pleted my study w ithout the financial support o f the C o m m o n w e a lth C om m ission. T h is was s u p p le m e n te d later by the a d m in is tra tio n o f the School o f O rien ta l and A fric a n Studies. T he nam es o f those d e s e rv in g m en tio n for th e ir e n c o u ra g e m e n t, a d v ic e and m oral s u p p o rt are the f o rm e r R e g is tr a r, Mr. T. B is h o p , the present Registrar, Mr. T. Harvey, and the P ostgraduate Dean, Dr. R. J.
A. R. Rathbone.
I am grateful to Mr. Michael P. G hany from the Help Desk, SO A S, in his efforts to help me print this thesis.
My g ra titu d e lies with my w o n d e rfu l fam ily w ho e n c o u ra g e d m e th ro u g h o u t my a c adem ic career, my father, Mr. A. T. M. M u rta z a, sister, B. Am ena Siddiqua, brother, A. T. M. Amin and my husband, Dr.
Md. Moezul Islam.
My heartfelt thanks are due to all who w ished me success. M ay the Alm ighty bless them all.
CONTENTS
A b s t r a c t 2
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t 3
1. I n t r o d u c t i o n 8
1.1 Purpose o f the thesis 8
1.1.1 J u s tific a tio n o f the thesis 14
1.2 G eneral principles o f the law o f e v id e n c e 16
1.2.1 P urpose o f w itness tes tim o n y 2 0
1.3 Islamic law o f e vidence 21
1.3.1 Islam ic law o f w itness testim ony 2 4
1.4 L a w o f e v i d e n c e in P a k i s t a n a n d B a n g l a d e s h
2 7
1.4.1 P r a c tic e o f law o f e v id e n c e in P a k is ta n and B a n g la d e s h
30
1.5 C o n c l u s i o n 3 2
2. D evelopm ent o f the law o f evidence in the I n d i a n s u b c o n t i n e n t
34
2.1 T h e Isla m ic law o f e v id e n c e b e f o r e the B r itis h rule
37
2.1.1 K inds o f evidence 39
2.1.1.1 D ir e c t e v id e n c e 41
2.1.1.2 H e a rsa y e v id e n c e 41
2.1.1.3 C i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e 4 2
2.1.1.4 Oral and D o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e 43
2.1.1.5 A d m i s s i o n 4 4
2.1.2 C o m p e te n c y o f w itn e s s e s 4 6
2.1.2.1 N u m b e r o f w itnesses 48
2.1.2.2 M ethod o f rec o rd in g w itn ess te s tim o n y 49
2.1.2.3 R e tra c tio n o f e v id e n c e 51
2.1.3 E s t o p p e l 51
2.1.4 O aths, s u m m o n s, c o m p u l s io n of' w itn e s s e s and p le a d e rs
51
2.1.5 Islamic law in Bengal 53
2.2 Islam ic law d uring B ritish rule 54
2.2.1 P r e s i d e n c y to w n s 55
2.2.2 M u fa ssil tow ns 58
64
69 71 75 76
81 86 97 98
101 103 107 116 131 132 141
145
148
148
150 154 164 169 172 174 178 180 186 189
190 R eg u la tio n s and Acts before the E v id e n c e
A c t , 1872
Need o f a codified law
Enactm ent o f the Evidence Act, 1872 Adoption o f the Evidence Act, 1872
R e c e n t d e v e l o p m e n t s in P a k i s t a n and B a n g l a d e s h
O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t . 1984 H u d u d and O is a s laws N o n - M u s l i m s
C o n c l u s i o n
Qualification o f a witness Com petence o f a witness Integrity o f a w itness Credibility o f a witness
U n d e r s ta n d i n g and p r u d e n c e D isabled and child witness
T e s t on t h e t r u t h f u l n e s s o f w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y
C o n c l u s i o n
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f w i t n e s s e s
C haracteristics o f w itn esse s d efined in the case law
I n te r e s t e d w itn e s s R e l a t i v e s
P o lic e w itness P a r ti s a n w itn e s s I n d e p e n d e n t w i t n e s s N a tu ra l w itn e s s C h a n c e w itn ess H o stile w itness T ra p w itness
C h a ra cte ristic s o f a w itn ess stated in the s t a t u t e
P r iv i l e g e d w itn e s s
5
4 .2 .2 E x p e r t o p in io n 192
4.2.3 R e c o v e ry w itn e s s 198
4 .2 .4 C ourt w itness 207
4.3 C o n c l u s i o n 209
5. P r o o f by th e te s t im o n y o f w itn e s s and c o n f e s s i o n
211
5.1 T e stim o n y o f w itnesses 213
5.1.1 N u m b e r o f w itnesses 215
5.1.1.1 A h a d : Solitary W itness 216
5.1.1.2 T a w a t u r : U niversal T e s tim o n y 220
5.1.1.3 M ore th an one w itness 223
5.1.2 Quality vs. Quantity 225
5.1.3 R e tra c tio n o f te s tim o n y 228
5.2 I q ra r : A dm ission: C o n fe ssio n 229
5.2.1 I q r a r : A d m iss io n 229
5.2.2 I q r a r : C o n f e s s io n 230
5.2.2.1 E x tra j u d ic ia l c o n fe s s io n 253
5.2.2.2 C o n fe ssio n o f c o -a c c u s ed 257
5.2.2.3 R e tra c tio n o f c o n fe s s io n 261
5.2.2.4 E v id e n tia ry v a lu e o f c o n fe s s io n 265
5.3 T e s tim o n y on tes tim o n y 270
5.3.1 D y in g d e c la r a t io n 271
5.3.1.1 E v id e n tiary value o f d y in g d e c la ra tio n 281
5.4 C o n c l u s i o n 28 4
6. F e m a le w itn ess 286
6.1 Legal status o f wom en in Islam 288
6.1.1 H a d d Offence 293
6.1.2 O isas Offence 294
6.1.3 Fin a n cia l and o th e r m atte rs 295
6.1.4 F e m a le m atte rs 297
6.1.5 T a w a t u r : Universal T estim ony 298
6.1.6 A r g u m e n ts in f a v o u r o f f e m a le w itn e s s t e s t i m o n y
300
6.1.7 R e a s o n s f o r e x c l u d i n g f e m a l e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y
304
6.2 T e s t i m o n y o f w o m e n in P a k i s t a n a n d 309 B a n g l a d e s h
6.2.1 P ro o f in civil and m u rd e r cases 310
6.2.2 P r o o f in illicit relations 313
6.2.2.1 P r o o f in illicit relations in p ractice 322
6.3 I n f lu e n c e in B a n g l a d e s h 336
6.3.1 F e m ale w itn ess tes tim o n y in B a n g la d e s h 337
6.3.2 Stoning to death in B angladesh 338
6.4 C o n c l u s i o n 340
7. C o n c l u s i o n 342
7.1 R etention o f the e xisting law 342
7 .2 E f fe c t o f Isla m ic r e s u r g e n c e in P a k i s t a n 344 and B a n g l a d e s h
7.3 C o m prehensive nature o f case law 348
7.3.1 C redibility o f w itness testim o n y 349
7.3.2 C o n f e s s i o n 357
7 .4 W o m e n and fem ale w itnesses 359
7.5 C o n c l u d i n g r e m a r k s 365
7.6 R e c o m m e n d a ti o n f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h 370 A p p e n d ic e s 1-3
1. S tatutes and R egulations 373
2. Table o f Cases (I) 378
3. Table o f Cases(II) 408
G l o s s a r y 415
A b b r e v i a t i o n 4 2 2
B i b l i o g r a p h y
Books 42 6
A r t i c l e s 4 4 4
7
CHAPTER 1
1. I n t r o d u c t i o n
T his c h a p te r seeks to d iscuss the p urpose and ju s tific a tio n o f the thesis. T h e re a fte r a b r ie f picture o f the general law o f e v idence, g e n e ra l I sla m ic law o f e v id e n c e and the la w o f e v id e n c e as applied in Pakistan and B angladesh is laid out. In the o u tlin e o f the general law o f evidence, som e o f the basic rules that apply to all m odern legal system s are discussed, k e eping in view th at these r u le s a re s i m i l a r to th e r u le s a p p l i c a b l e in P a k i s t a n and B a n g la d esh , and to som e e x te n t s im ila r to the n o tio n o f Islam ic law o f evidence. As the focus o f the thesis is on witness testim ony, m o re space is devoted to the d iscussion o f w itness testim o n y than o th e r general rules o f evidence.
1.1 Pu rp os e of the Thesis
T h e p ro p o se d thesis atte m p ts to a nalyse the d e v e lo p m e n t o f the law o f e v id e n c e c o n c e r n in g w itn e s s te s tim o n y in P a k i s t a n and B a n g la d e s h . T h e c o d if ie d law o f e v id e n c e a p p li c a b l e in India , P a k ista n and B angladesh was the E v id e n ce Act, 1872 w ith certain a m e n d m en ts added from tim e to tim e to suit the needs o f each country, until Pakistan changed its position in 1984. The E v id e n ce Act, 1872, continues to b e the guid in g law o f e v id e n c e in India and B a n g la d e s h .
P a k is ta n c la im s to ha ve in tro d u c e d Isla m ic law o f e v id e n c e by p r o c l a im in g O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t in 1984. In this context, the study s h o w s to w h a t e x te n t P a k is ta n has in tr o d u c e d I sla m ic law o f e v id e n c e as o pposed to i t ’s p re d e c e s so r, the E v id e n c e A ct. T he stu d y will be p rim a rily c o n c e rn e d with som e o f the a sp ec ts o f
w itness testim ony th a t are c hanged; the study will also e x a m in e w h e th e r th o s e a s p e c ts o f th e E v i d e n c e A ct r e g a r d in g w itn e s s t e s t im o n y is in i t s e l f u n l s l a m i c o r w h e t h e r its a p p l i c a t i o n resulted in u n lsla m ic d e c isio n s. T h is seem s im p o rta n t b e c a u s e the sections o f the E v id e n c e A ct, 1872, w hic h P a k ista n ha s am en d e d , d e le te d , in tro d u c e d and r e a r ra n g e d as th e O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t . 1984 are c r u c i a l . T h i s r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f n e w a r t i c l e s is c o n s id e re d by the p r o p o n e n ts o f the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t to be Isla m ic . B efore th e E v id e n c e A ct was re p la c e d in 1984 it was affected by the in tro d u c tio n o f the H u d u d O r d in a n c e s in 1979.
T h o s e p ro v isio n s t h a t are in c o n flic t w ith the E v id e n c e A c t o r practices o f the C ourt are also discussed to show th eir differences, and the im portance o f such change. It is to be n o ted th at Islam does not o bjec t to p r in c ip le s th a t are n o t i n h e r e n tly u n isla m ic . T h e refo re the system is fle x ib le e n o u g h to e x p a n d and fo rm u la te r u l e s .
T h e s i m i l a r i t i e s a n d d i f f e r e n c e s are b r o u g h t o n re c o r d by a n a l y s i n g r e p o r t e d c a s e s o f P a k i s t a n a n d B a n g l a d e s h . A n y rele v a n t p oints m ad e by the ju r i s ts in Isla m ic law g e n e ra lly or specifically are in m o st case s c o m p a red w ith the law in P a k ista n and B a n g la d esh at the sa m e tim e. T he w ork take s into a c c o u n t m ore crim inal than civil cases. T h is is b e cause the ch a n g e m ade in Pakistan in the law o f e v idence has g re a te r im pact on c rim inal cases than civil c a se s. It m ay be m e n tio n e d th a t w hile d e a lin g w ith the law o f e v idence, only s o m e aspects o f w itness testim o n y are e m p h a s ise d . S e c tio n 118 and 119 e q u iv a l e n t to a rtic le 3, se ctio n 134 e q u iv a le n t to article 17, s e ctio n 32 (1 ) e q u iv a le n t to 46(1) read with the new proviso o f article 71, sections 29 and 30 e q u iv a le n t to a rtic le s 42 and 43 and a n e w a rtic le 4 4 o f the
9
E v id e n c e A ct and the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t a re d is c u s s e d . T h e a rticle s o f the H u d u d O r d i n a n c e s r e l a ti n g to p r o o f a re a lso disc u sse d . T here are s o m e o th e r p r o v is io n s o f law d is c u s s e d in relation to the above few rules. It w ould be im p o ssib le w ithin the confines o f the p rese n t study to deal w ith all aspec ts o f w itness t e s t i m o n y .
T he study is confined to case law from the period o f 1979 to the p r e s e n t in P a k i s t a n a n d fro m 1971 u n t il t h e p r e s e n t in B a n g la d esh . T he reason f o r this is th a t the I s la m is a tio n p ro c e s s a ffe c te d the law o f e v id e n c e fro m 1979 o n w a r d s in P a k is ta n . B ang la d esh b ecam e in d e p e n d e n t in 1971. T he In d ia n case law on evidence is not discussed except for referral point. T he rea so n for discussing only Pakistani and B angladeshi case law is that, i. both o f them were the sam e country before, ii. both the countries have a M u s lim m a jo r ity , iii. th e c o d if ie d law s o f e v id e n c e in its a m e n d m e n t and its a p p lic a tio n in the C ourts o f both w in g s o f Pakistan were the sam e be fo re 1971, as opposed to India, and iv.
o n e w o u ld a rg u e t h a t I s l a m i s a t i o n in P a k i s t a n , in w h a t e v e r rem o te m anner, affects B a n g la d e s h . T h is is d is c u s s e d in c h a p te r t w o . 1
T h is study is n o t to d is c u s s o r e la b o r a te the Isla m ic la w o f evidence as such. R e le v an t rules are m en tio n e d at tim es to sh o w the s im ila ritie s or d is s im ila r itie s b e tw e e n the I sla m ic law w ith the law as applied in Pa k ista n and B angladesh. T h e cases o f the Shariat Court o f Pakistan are cited to show the p o sitio n in Islam ic law. W here the ca se law differed from the tra d itio n al Islam ic law this has been pointed out. T h e c ases from the C o u rts in P a k ista n
* see chapter 2.3
and the Courts in B a n g la d esh are d isc u sse d as su b sta n tia tin g each o t h e r on c e rta in iss u e s c o n c e r n in g w itn e s s te s tim o n y w h e r e no real difference lies be tw e en them . W he n the c ite d ca se law relies on a pre 1971 in Bangladesh and on pre 1979 in Pakistan case law.
It is m ost o f the tim e carefully m entioned to show the antiquated origin o f the proposition. In the process, an e x p o sitio n o f the law o f w itn ess te s tim o n y from the c a se law w ill be a tta in e d . T h e n u m b e r o f r e p o rte d c a se s is m u c h h i g h e r in P a k is ta n c o m p a r e d to B angladesh. T h e re m ay be no case law at all from B angladeshi Courts on certain issues.
Often, when a vailable, reference is m a d e to c o m p a re the p o s itio n in P a k ista n and B a n g la d e s h w ith a th ird c o u n try . T h is k in d o f c o m p a ris o n helps to cla rify o r e x p a n d the view o n a p a rtic u la r issue. It is to be noted how ever that there is no intention to draw a c o m p a ris o n w ith any p a rtic u la r c o u n try .
B e c a u s e P a k i s t a n c la im s to h a v e i n t r o d u c e d I s l a m i c la w o f e v id e n c e , it is th o u g h t to be w o rth w h ile to lo o k b rie fly at the Islam ic law o f e v id e n c e as it w as b e fo re the E v id e n c e A ct, 1872, was codified, to see in w hat form was Isla m ic law o f e v id e n c e a p p lic ab le then. It will give a s u m m a ry p ictu re o f P a k ista n and B a n g la d e s h reg a rd in g th e ir d e v e lo p m e n t in the a re a o f e v id e n c e . T h o u g h Hindu law and laws o f o th e r groups w ere in force during the M uslim reign in India, this study does not deal with them as tim e and space do not permit.
T he H e d a v a is taken to be a g u id e for the H a n a fi sc h o o l o f thought, and it will be cited as the m ost im p o rta n t Islam ic source for this work. T he ju d g e s o f P a k ista n often refer to the H e d a v a . T h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e n a tu r e o f H e d a v a is d i s c u s s e d in c h a p te r
1 1
t w o . 2 T h e re is an initial p r e s u m p tio n th at the M u s lim s in the I n d ia n s u b c o n ti n e n t are g u id e d by H a n a fi s c h o o l o f t h o u g h t, although follow ers o f o th er schools exist.^ The study also at times m a k e s re fe re n c e to th re e o th e r sc h o o ls o f th o u g h t, and a lso to p r o p o s i t i o n s v a r y i n g f ro m th e H a n a f i v ie w . T h is w o u l d b e c onsistent with Islam ic law as T a l f i q ( a m a lg a m a tin g o r p a tc h i n g o f id e a s o f d i f f e r e n t s c h o o ls o f t h o u g h t) a n d T a k k h a v v u r (c o n s id e rin g the v iew o f a c e rta in j u r i s t b e tt e r th a n the o th e r ju ris ts ) are an accepted norm fo r refo rm ist le g is la to rs in Isla m ic
c o u n t r i e s .
T h e a spect o f fem ale w itness te s tim o n y is d ealt w ith s e p ara te ly . R e f e r e n c e s f ro m Q u r ’a n ic A v a h (v e rs e s o f the Q u r ’an) and P r o p h e tic H a d ith are m a d e in this r e s p e c t to a n a ly s e it from Islam ic legal point o f view. This area is c o n tro v e rs ia l in Isla m ic law. Pakistan has legislated on fem a le tes tim o n y a c c o rd in g to the Isla m ic law. It is th o u g h t p r o p e r to look at th o s e c o n tr o v e rs ie s s pecifically. It is resented by m an y w om en in P a k ista n th at th e ir p o s it i o n is r e d u c e d to a n e g li g ib l e c o n d i t i o n by i n t r o d u c i n g H u d u d O rdinances, w here the w om an is barred from b e c o m in g a w itn ess fo r H a d d p u n ish m e n t, and by article 17 o f O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t w hich equates the testim ony o f two w o m e n to that o f one m an in certain m atters. T his area is also o f c o n c e rn to all M uslim w om en w hether o r not they are directly affe c te d by that law, as Pakistani w om en are.
T he study is d iv id e d into seven c hapters. T h e study b e g in s with the first c h a p te r as an introduc tion. It c o n ta in s the p u r p o s e and
2 see chapter 2.1
^Mahmood, Tahir, Family Law Reform in the Muslim World, Bombay, 1972,
the justification o f the thesis, a b r ie f general outline o f the law of e v id e n c e as a p p e a r s in d iff e re n t te x t b o o k s in the w e st, the Islam ic law o f e v id e n c e and the law o f e v id e n c e as in P a k ista n and B angladesh. T h e second c h a p te r gives a b r ie f b a c k g ro u n d o f the position o f Islam ic law in M uslim India, a b r ie f sum m ary of the le g is la tiv e e n a c tm e n t on law o f e v id e n c e , in the form o f R e g u la tio n s and A cts passed fro m tim e to tim e by the B ritish G ove rnm e nt in India until the a d option o f the E v id e n c e Act, 1872 by India, P a k is ta n and B a n g la d e s h and d is c u s s e s b rie fly the re in tr o d u c tio n o f I s la m ic law s in P a k is ta n . It m o v e s on to the a n a ly t ic a l c h a p te r s f o ll o w i n g it. T h e f o l l o w i n g f o u r c h a p te r s sp e cific a lly deal w ith som e o f the c h a n g e s on w itn ess testim o n y b ro u g h t in by the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t . 1984. a nd t he H u d u d O rd in a n c e s , 1979. T h e third c h a p te r is on the q u a li f ic a ti o n o f w i t n e s s e s . T h i s c h a p t e r te s ts t h e c o m p e t e n c e o f a w i t n e s s ’ te s tim o n y , th e e s s e n tia ls o f w h ic h are u n d e rs to o d to be m u ch m ore severe in Isla m ic law th an the ge ne ra l law o f evidence. It e xam ines how case law varies in its d ealings with the c o m petence o f a witness, and how m uch the criteria o f the case law is Islamic in e s s e n c e . T h e f o u r t h c h a p t e r e x a m i n e s th e c o m p e t e n c e o f d if f e r e n t k in d s o f w itn e s s e s and t h e i r te s tim o n y . It m a k e s an a tt e m p t to d e f i n e a n d a m p lif y d i f f e r e n t k in d s o f w i t n e s s e s m entioned in the case law. The fifth c h a p te r is on the quantum o f p r o o f --- the r e q u ir e d n u m b e r o f w i tn e s s e s , c o n f e s s io n o f the a c c u s e d and d y i n g d e c la r a t io n s m a d e in the p r e s e n c e o f the w itn esse s. T h is c h a p te r in p a rtic u la r show s that p r o o f o f a case c ould be direct or indirect due to necessity. The rule of necessity m ay also allow the quantity o f the w itnesses to be reduced even in d ire c t oral e v id e n c e . T h e sixth c h a p te r is on fe m a le w itn e s s e s ,
1 3
their legal status in Islam and the right conferred on them by the ju r i s ts through the age s, th e c a s e s o f S h a ria t and H igh C o u rt, argum ents for a gainst the a d m is s ib ility o f th e ir testim o n y etc. It is follow ed by a seventh c h a p te r w ith conclusion.
A r a b i c w o r d s a re u s e d i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y w i t h t h e E n g l i s h e q u iv a le n t at tim es. T h e tra n s lite r a tio n o f th e A ra b ic w o rd s is w ritten as closely as p o s s ib le to th e A rabic p ro n u n cia tio n . W h e re there is a quotation in w hich the tra n s lite ra tio n differs from the standard considered in this study it is left to th at but w hen it is p a ra p h r a s e d the t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n o f th is study is f o llo w e d . T h e nam es o f statutes w ith d iffe re n t tra n slite ra tio n s is also left to its ow n version, but w h ile d is c u s s in g the articles o r c la u s e s o f th e statute the tra nslite ra tion o f the study are follow ed.
T h e A rabic w ords p e rta in in g to the law o f e v id e n c e is w r itte n w ith capital letters and u n d e rlin e d . All o th e r f o re ig n w ords are w ritten in small le tte rs and unde rlin ed . M axim s and L a tin w o rd s are italicised. Italics also use d to show e m p h a s is o f a s ta te m e n t m ade in the course o f argum ent.
At the end o f the study are a bibliography, a table o f statutes, a g lo s s a r y o f fo re ig n w o r d s w ith E n g l is h m e a n i n g , a lis t o f abbreviations relevant to this subject, and two tables o f case law o f Pakistan and B a ngladesh.
1.1.1 J u s ti f i c at i o n o f the T h e s i s
It a p p e a r s th at this s u b je c t p e r se has n o t b e e n d e a lt w ith s e p a r a te ly by any w rite r. It se e m s th a t this s u b je c t is m o re rele v an t after the in tro d u c tio n o f the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t and the H u d u d laws in Pakistan as pa rt o f the Islam isation program m e. In this context the study seeks to analyse the status and position o f
w itness testim o n y as it a ppears in the sta tute and case law o f P a k is ta n and B a n g la d e s h . T h e ta s k is to c o lle c t s c a tte r e d and scanty m aterial from a large c o r p u s o f reported case law and put it together in one place so that it becom es one c o h e re n t study o f the rules reg a rd in g w itn ess testim o n y .
The s e co n d c h a p te r is m e a n t o n ly to g iv e a s u m m a ry o f the history o f Islam ic law o f e v id e n c e in India, in tro d u c tio n o f the E v id e n c e Act, 1872, and the re in tr o d u c tio n o f Isla m ic law in Pakistan. They do not form the thesis. A d e tailed survey o f any one o f these topics would lead to a thesis in itself. This chapter is th ere fo re c o nfined to a sum m ary only.
It is ju stifie d to look into the reported case law in the analytical c h a p te rs , as the issu e s d isc u s s e d are aptly m e n tio n e d there. It serves as an exposition and analysis o f the law. T h e other reason is that the reported case law has not been treated analytically so f a r .
T he d iff e re n t issues th at will a p p e a r in the a n a ly tic a l c h a p te rs probably would be worthy o f separate study. It m ust be noted that those diffe re nt issues, e.g. child w itness, e x p e rt w itness etc., are d isc u sse d individually from the p e rs p e c tiv e o f the c o m p e te n c y o f a w itness.
This study does not aim to enlarge the philosophical d isc ussion on the ideas and concept o f witness testim ony. It co n c en tra te s on the legal findings and at tim es reasons fo r the in d iv id u a l b e h a v io u r o f w itness testim ony.
B e f o r e g o in g into th e h is to r y o f law o f e v i d e n c e and the analytical chapters follow ing it a b r ie f d isc u ssio n is m ade on the ge ne ra l princ iple s o f law o f e v id e n c e as a ppears in v a rio u s text
1 5
books, the Isla m ic law o f e v id e n c e and the law o f e v id e n c e in P a k is ta n and B a n g la d esh .
1.2 General Pri nciples o f the L a w of E v i d e n c e
T h e w o rd e v id e n c e is d e riv e d from the L a tin w o rd e v id e n s o r evidere that m eans to show clearly, to m ake c le a r to the sight, to d iscover clearly, to ascertain, to prove, e tc .4
A c c o r d in g to F itz ja m e s S te p h e n the w o rd e v id e n c e m ay m e a n te s tim o n y , re le v a n c y , e x h ib itin g th in g s in the C o u rt, and fac ts p r o v e d to e x is t by the e x h ib i ti o n o f th in g s .^ It m ay also be d efined as a m ethod, m eans or p ro c e d u re p rev a ilin g by m ea n s or pro ce d u re o f w hich som e fact, do c u m e n ts, or c o n d itio n o f things re l e v a n t to the iss u e in a tria l o r an a c ti o n is p r o v e d , or disproved, and it includes all legal m eans allow ed, w hic h tend to either prove or disprove the fact in issue; b u t it does not include m e r e a r g u m e n ts .^
E v id e n c e , a c co rd in g to Jerem y B e n th a m ( 1 7 4 8 -1 8 3 2 A .D .), is som e m a tte r o f fact o r statem ent regarding som e m a tte r o f fact that is prese nted to the ju d g e to p roduce in the j u d g e 's m in d p e rsu a sio n o f som e other m aterial fact necessary for d e c i s i o n . ^
T h e m ain princ iple s that u n d e rlie the tra d itio n al law o f evid e n c e a r e
1. evidence m ust be confined to the m atter in issue,
4 Field, C.D., The Law of Evidence in British India, 5th ed., Calcutta and London, 1894, p. 3
^Montrose, J. L., ‘Basic Concepts of the Law of Evidence’ in Evidence and Proof edited by William Twining and Alex Stein, Aldershot et al, 1992, pp. 347-375 at p.350; Stephen, James Fitzjames, An introduction to Indian Evidence Act, Calcutta, 1872, 2nd imp. 1904, p. 4
^Kinney, Alex, Student's Guide to the Law o f Evidence in India, Calcutta, 1914
^Postema, Gerald, ‘Facts, Fictions and Law Bentham on the Foundations of Evidence’ in Facts in Law edited by William Twining, Wiesbaden, 1983, pp.
38-64 at p. 39
2. hearsay evidence m ust not be adm itted and 3. best evidence m ust be given in all c a se s.8
J ohn Henry W ig m o r e ’s (1863-1943 A.D .) rules are m o re elaborate.
He has classified the rules as follows^
A. Rules o f Probative Policy
1. E x c lu s io n a ry R u le s , w h ic h e x c lu d e e v id e n c e on g r o u n d s o f relevancy o r o f policy related to th eir p ro b ativ e force;
2. Pre fe rentia l R ule s, w hic h req u ire one k in d o f e v id e n c e to be offered in prefe re n c e to any other;
3. A nalytical R ules w hich require certain kinds o f e v id e n c e to be subjected to rigid scrutiny, n o tab ly cro ss e x a m in a tio n
4. P ro p h y la c tic R ules, w h ic h apply c e rta in m e a s u r e s in adva n ce , such as fo rm a litie s g o v e rn in g w ills and con tra cts;
5. Q u a n t it a ti v e R u le s , w h ic h r e q u i r e c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e to be p ro d u c e d in spe cifie d q u a n tity , e.g. c o rr o b o r a tio n o r t h a t w h ic h m ak e certain kin d s o f evid e n c e sufficient;
B. R u l e s o f E x t r i n s i c P o l ic y , i.e. r u le s b a s e d o n p o l i c i e s in d e p e n d e n t o f p ro b a tiv e v a lu e , n o ta b ly :
6. R u le s o f A b s o lu te E x c lu s io n , such as e v id e n c e o b ta in e d by illegal search or c onfession to a police officer;
7. Rules o f C onditional E xclusion, i.e. p ro v id in g for the exclusion at the option o f the p a rty e x e rc is in g a p r iv ile g e , su c h as the la w y e r c lie n t p riv ile g e .
8Hanif, Dr. C. M., The Qanun-e-Shahadat (The Islamic Law o f Evidence), 1984, Lahore, N Y, p. 26
^Wigmore, John H., A Student’s Textbook of the Law o f Evidence, Chicago, 1935, pp. 27-51
1 7
E vidence may also be excluded apart from its probative value if its p r o d u c t i o n w o u ld i n v o l v e p r e p o n d e r a n t v e x a t i o n , e x p e n s e o r delay in the individual case, ju d g e d by the standard o f utility. *0 W illia m T w ining s u g g e sts about the above c a te g o risa tio n by J. H.
W ig m o r e th a t o n ly q u a n tita tiv e and p r e f e re n tia l ru le s c o u ld be e x p lic a te d w ith n o tio n s o f w e ig h t, b u t fo r the m o s t p a rt th e s e rules do not d ire c tly req u ire th a t a p a rtic u la r w e ig h t sh o u ld be a ccorded to a p a rtic u la r class o f evidence. This view , he says, is shared by alm ost all m o d e m w riters on evidence.* * S o p in k a and o th ers are o f th e v ie w th a t the rules o f e v id e n c e are n o t only v a lu e a c co m m o d a te d in the search fo r truth, b u t are de sig n e d to e n h a n c e e ff ic ie n c y o f th e tria l p ro c e s s itself. T h e fu n d a m e n ta l p r i n c i p l e th a t th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n t e d to th e C o u rt m u s t be rele v an t to the issu e e n su re s th at the Court is n o t d istra c te d by collateral m atters. T h e c ollateral fact rule w hich lim its the scope o f e v id e n c e th a t c an be p re s e n te d in testin g th e c re d ib ility o f a w i t n e s s se ek s to e n s u r e t ria l e f f i c i e n c y . 1 2 In the in te rest o f j u s t i c e , the e x c lu s io n a r y r e q u ir e m e n t m u st be c o n fin e d to rules o f p r a c tic e , f o r th e r e are ris k s in h e r e n t in p l a c i n g e x c e s s iv e r e l i a n c e on c e r t a i n k i n d s o f u n c o r r o b o r a t e d e v id e n c e , o r on e v idence o f p rev io u s c o n v ic tio n s, sim ilar facts, e t c . 1 3
^ T w i n i n g , William, ‘Rule-Scepticism and Fact-Scepticism in Bentham ’s Theory of Evidence’ in Facts in Law, Wiesbaden, 1983, pp. 65-84 at p. 76;
Bentham, Jeremy, A Treatise on Judicial Evidence London, 1825, pp.229-30;
Holdcroft, David, ‘Relevance in Legal Proof’ in Facts in Law edited by William Twining, Weisbaden, 1983, pp. 127-144, at p. 142; Zuckerman, Adrian,
‘Relevance in Legal Proceedings’ in Facts in Law, Weisbaden, 1983, pp. 145- 155 at p. 152 referring to Bentham, Introductory View of the Rationale of Evidence, 6 Bowring ed., 1843, 90; Rationale of Judicial Evidence, 7 Bowring ed.,335
^ T w in in g , ‘Rule-Scepticism ’ 1983 at pp. 74-5,
12Sopinka et al, The Law o f Evidence in Canada, Toronto, 1992. pp. 2-3; Cohen, L. Jonathan, ‘Freedom of Proof’ in Facts in Law edited by William Twining, Wiesbaden, 1983, pp. 1-21 at p. 2
*3Cohen, ‘Freedom of ... ’ 1983 at p. 14
W illia m T w in in g w h ile e x p la in in g the e x c lu s io n a r y rules, re fe rs to Je re m y B e n th a m and Je ffre y G ilb e r t. A c c o r d in g to J e re m y B e n t h a m , e x c l u s i o n o f any e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e s j u s t i f i c a t i o n , b e c a u s e e v id e n c e is th e basis o f ju s tic e . E x c lu s io n o f e v id e n c e w ould result in e x c lu s io n o f j u s tic e . T h e re is the u n d e rs ta n d in g that m ost testim ony is true. Rigid exclusionary rules would tend to e xc lude m uch in fo rm a tio n that is reliable; even false e v id e n c e is b e tte r th an the a b s e n c e o f evide nc e : the fo rm e r m ay be u se fu l
f o r e x a m p l e in i d e n t i f y i n g i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s o r as
"indicative" e v id e n c e lea d in g to o th er, b e tte r evid e n c e .
W illia m T w in in g argues in favour o f e x c lu sio n ary rules. H e says, c o n c e r n s f o r p r o c e d u r a l f a ir n e s s , g i v in g a h i g h e r p r io r ity to o th e r so c ia l v a lu e s th a n the p u r s u i t o f tru th in a d ju d ic a tio n , m in im is in g offic ia l a buse o f p o w e r and g iving c re d e n c e to w hat the legal profession claim s to be the lessons o f e xperience are the m ain, but by no m eans the only kinds o f reason that are typically a d v a n c e d to j u s t i f y th e r e t e n ti o n o f s o m e f o r m a l r u le s o f e x c l u s i o n .
T h e g e n e ra l t h e o r y is th at the b e s t e v id e n c e is to be g iv e n follow ing the rules o f relevancy, i.e. the best evid e n c e within the a d m i s s i b l e l im i t s o f th e e v i d e n c e . J e f f r e y G i l b e r t ’s s im p l e c o m p r e h e n s i v e t h e o r y o f j u d i c i a l e v i d e n c e f o u n d e d on the L o c k e a n th eo ry o f k n o w le d g e g ives the d e fin itio n o f the b e s t e v id e n c e . His th e o r y is "That a M an m u st h a v e the u tm o s t Evidence, the N ature o f the Fact is capable of; for the D esign o f the L aw is to c om e to rigid D em onstration in M atters o f Right, and
19
there can be no D em o n stra tio n o f F act w ithout the B e st E v idence that the nature o f the thing is capable o f " 14
It se em s h o w e v e r m u c h the law o f e v i d e n c e m a y be v a lu e a c c o m m o d a te d and h o w e v e r m u c h the b e st p o s s ib le e v id e n c e is p rocured, the ju d g e m e n t m ay not alw ays reflec t the tru th o f the m atte r. M ark O c k e lto n e x p la in s th at the p r im e p u r p o s e o f the j u d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g is not to d is c o v e r the tru th , a lt h o u g h it is desirable that it tends to coincide with the truth. H e says that the a d v e rs a ry sy s te m o f trial is n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y w ell a d a p te d to d i s c o v e r i n g th e t r u t h , a n d c o m p a r i s o n s w i t h s c i e n t i f i c a n d h isto ric a l f a c t-fin d in g are not really a p p ro p ria te . F o r th e fin d in g o f facts the ju d g e de te rm in e s rath e r th a n d isc o v e rs th e fact. The jud g em e n t is required not to be a true but a Firm o n e .1 ^
1 .2 .1 P u r p o s e o f W i t n e s s T e s t i m o n y
T e stim o n ie s o f w itn esse s are r eq u ired to p r e s e n t e v id e n tia l facts for e s ta b lis h in g o r in fe rrin g m a te ria l f a c t s . 1** W he n a w itness is c alled, sw orn in, and answers q ue stions, his s ta te m e n ts are called t e s t i m o n y . 1 7
W itn e ss-o rie n te d evid e n c e is prepared to avoid w h a t is h e a r s a y .1 ^ The presence o f the witnesses in open C ourt p laces th e evidential facts that suffice o r fail to suffice for a v e rd ic t o f guilt against the a c c u se d , so that any in d iv id u a l can a s s e s s t h e i r p r o b a tiv e
14Twining, ‘Rule-Scepticism ’ 1983 at pp. 70 and 78-80
^ O c k e lt o n , Mark, “Comments on John Jackson’s ‘Questions of Fact and Questions of Law’ in Facts in Law edited by William Twining, Wiesbaden, 1983, pp. 101-7 at p. 107
^ Z uckerm an, Adrian A. S. ‘Law Fact or Justice’ in Boston University Law R ev ie w , May & July, 1986, Vol. 66, No. 3&4, pp. 487-508 at pp. 488-9
17Ferguson et al, Legal Aspects o f Evidence, New York et al, 1978, p. 14
^ S t e i n , Alex, The Law of Evidence and the Problem of Risk-Distribution, Ph.D.
Thesis, London University, 1990, p. 43
v a lu e fo r t h e m s e l v e s .1^ T he best available w itness is and should a lw a y s be p r e f e r r e d . 2 ® F o r a d m i tt i n g w i t n e s s t e s t im o n y the w i t n e s s h a s to b e c o m p e t e n t . T h e g e n e r a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e fact in issue seem s to be part o f all legal s y s te m s . W h a t is p r o v e d d i r e c tl y by the e v id e n c e in C o u rt i n v o lv e s f o r th e m o s t p a r t a s k in g w h e t h e r w itn e s s e s c an be b e lie v e d in t h e i r te s tim o n y on w h a t they d id o r p e r c e iv e d .2 1 J o n a th a n L. C ohe n points out that the assu m p tio n o f a un iv ersa l c o g n it iv e c o m p e t e n c e is c u r r e n tly u n d e r s e rio u s c h a l l e n g e .22 It m a y be t h a t th e e p is t e m o l o g ic a l o p tim is m o f th e s e v e n t e e n t h c e n tu ry and the E n lig h te n m e n t is b e g in n in g to c ru m b le, and the failures to solve econom ic and political pro b le m s and pro b le m s o f i n d u s t r ia l e c o lo g i c a l g r o w t h ,2 ^ alo n g with a w id e s p re a d interest in th e p s y c h o lo g y o f the ir r a ti o n a l o r e v e n th e b a c k la s h o f p o p u l a r f e e l in g a g a in s t t h e w h o le e n t e r p r i s e o f s c ie n c e , are r e f l e c t e d in a t e n d e n c y t o i m p o s e r a t h e r p e s s i m i s t i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o n e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a a b o u t o r d i n a r y h u m a n r e a s o n i n g p o w e r s . 2 ^
1.3 I s l a m i c L a w o f E v i d e n c e
Islam ic law and S h a r i a are often in te rch a n g e a b ly used. S h a r i a is a b r o a d e r c o n c e p t i n c lu d in g e th ic a l p r in c i p le s w h ic h are n o t
^ C o h e n , ‘Freedom of ... ’ 1983 at p. 10 2®Stein, 1990, p. 49
9 1Jackson, John D. ‘Questions of Fact and Questions of Law’ in Fact in Law, edited by William Twining, Wiesbaden, 1983, pp. 85-100 at p. 90
22Cohen, ‘Freedom of ...’ 1983 at p. 2
2 3 It is true of Pakistan and Bangladesh also. Industrial ecological growth in the West is balanced against these countries taking the same turn.
2^Cohen, ‘Freedom of ... ’ 1983 at p. 16
21
p r o v id e d w ith d e fin ite legal s a n c t i o n .2 ^ Islam ic law o f e v idence consists o f both w itness testim ony and general p r o o f 2 ^ w ith m ore e m p h a sis to the form er.
T h e r e is d isa g re e m e n t am ongst the j u r i s ts as to w h e th e r ge ne ra l p r o o f can be applicable to c rim in a l m atte rs o f H u d u d . G e n e r a l p r o o f is a m ea n s by w h ic h t r u th is m a n i f e s t e d . E v i d e n c e is n e c e s s a r i l y lim it e d to c o n f e s s i o n o f th e a c c u s e d o r w itn e s s testim ony for a H a d d offe n c e .27
T h e S h a h a d a o r t e s t im o n y is o n e o f th e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i n s t i t u t i o n s w ith in t h e s y s te m o f e v id e n c e a n d th e j u d i c i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n o f I s l a m i c law . In I s l a m i c l a w , t e s t i m o n y o f w itn e s s e s is the best proof. W ritte n te s tim o n y has alw ays b e e n l o o k e d u p o n w ith d is f a v o u r by j u d i c i a l p r a c tic e and d o c tr in e . W h e n w ritte n m a te ria l w as w id e ly u s e d in le g a l m a tte r s and re g u la r clerks w ere a ppointed to tribuna ls, the c o n te n ts o f p ublic and private docum ents were p roved not so m uch by the text itse lf as by the w i tn e s s e s w ho a tte s te d the d o c u m e n t s . T h e le g a l doc um e nts, p rivate or notarise d, had to be w itn e s s e d by at least tw o p e rs o n s . J u d g e m e n ts had to b e w itn e s s e d as w e l l .2 ** T he re a s o n p e rh a p s is the j u r i s ts m a n a g e d to a v o id the Q u r ’anic i n j u n c t i o n t o w a r d s w r i tt e n d o c u m e n t s [e.g. S u r a 2 : 2 8 2 ] by in te rp re tin g it as a sim ple r e c o m m e n d a tio n .2 9
2 ^Breiner, Bert F., Two Papers on Shariah, Centre fo r the study of Islam and Christian-M uslim R elations, Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, April 1992, pp.
1 0 - 1 1
2 ^For details see Mahmud, Abdulmalik Bappa, Supremacy o f Islamic Law, Zaria, NY, pp. 66-113.
2 7 Salama, Dr. Mamoun M., General Principles of Criminal Evidence in Islamic Jurisprudence* in The Islamic Criminal Justice System edited by M. Cherif Bassiouni, London et al, 1982, pp. 109-123 at pp. 110-1
2 **Khadduri, Majid, The Islamic Conception o f Justice, Baltimore and London, 1984, p. 148; Mahmud, NY, pp. 86-7
29 Wakin, Jeanette A. (ed.), The Function o f Documents in Islamic Law, Albany, 1972, p. 6
To be com petent in Islam ic law, a witness m ust possess m aturity, r e a s o n , m e m o r y , s p e e c h , v isu a l and a u d ib le p e r c e p ti o n , g o o d c h a ra c te r, authentic k n o w le d g e o f the issue, and fa ith in Isla m . W ith in the ju ris tic d e b a te there are e x c e p tio n s to all the above co n d itio n s except reason, m em ory and good character.^®
Is la m ic law is to a c e r t a i n e x te n t b a s e d on t h e t h e o r y o f c o rr o b o r a tio n . W ith in H u d u d it seem s that the grea ter the gravity o f the crim e within the Islam ic con c ep t o f a s ociety, the g r e a te r is the w eight given to the c o rro b o ratin g testim o n y o f a spe cifie d n u m b e r o f w itnesses. T he crim e o f Z i n a (sim ilar to adultery), as laid dow n in Sura 4:19-20 and 24:4, requires fo u r witnesses o f ju s t character in o rder to be proven. In all o th er cases, a m in im u m o f two m en or one m an and two w o m e n are c o n sid e red s a tisfa c to ry by the jurists according to Sura 2 : 2 8 2 .3 1 This does not m ean that a d e c is io n w ould w e igh in fav o u r o f a p e rs o n w ho b rin g s m o re w i t n e s s e s . T h e j u s t n e s s o f t h e w i t n e s s e s is o f u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c e . 3 2 T he testim o n y o f each w itness o f j u s t c h a ra c te r m u st be supported by a nother w itness o f ju s t c h a ra c te r and the ju stn e s s o f c h a ra c te r o f each o th er w itness m ust be c o n firm e d by a n o th e r p e rs o n o f j u s t c h a r a c t e r c a ll e d the M u z a k k i . T h e q ualifications o f w itnesses are c o n sid e red o f u tm o s t im p o rta n c e to insure im partiality and ju stic e in the ju d ic ia l p r o c e s s .3 3
The essential elem ents o f p ro o f a r e ____
1. adm ission by the accused as the prim ary evidence, 2. the testimony o f two ju st witnesses, and
3®Salama, ‘General Principles ...’ 1982 at pp. 116-118; Mahmud, NY, pp. 72- 80 and 106-107
3 1 Khadduri, 1984, p. 148; Mahmud, NY, p. 108 32Mahmud, NY, p. 84
33Khadduri, 1984, p. 148, Mahmud, NY, pp. 73-74
23
3. the oath o f either party and the testim ony o f one witness.
In Islam , the standard o f substantive justice, consisting o f a set o f relig io u s and m oral values highly e s te e m e d in the pu b lic eye, is fa r from capable o f being realised by the ju d ic ia l process, despite the stress laid on the qualifications for the office o f ju d g e and the m e tic u lo u s n e s s o f the law o f e v id e n c e .34 In effect, the h a rshness o f Islam ic Criminal law and penalties is m itigated by the rules of evidence. Morally, it is regarded that i f a w itness lies in front o f the O a d i it does not e x e m p t him from the g r e a te r p u n is h m e n t a w a i ti n g f o r him from t h e A l m i g h t y . 35 T h e leg a l a n d m oral v a lu e s are in coh e re n c e w ith one another.
1 .3 .1 I s l a m i c L a w o f W i t n e s s T e s t i m o n y
The S h a h a d a or testimony o f a S h a h i d or a witness is a declaration on a legal claim in fa v o u r o f o n e pa rty a g a in s t a n o th e r party, b a s e d on an accurate k n o w le d g e o f the state o f affairs, and is m ad e be fo re a ju d g e in a p res c rib e d form. T he tak in g and giving o f te s tim o n y is F a rd ala al K if a v a or c o ll e c t i v e o b lig a tio n . It b e c o m e s Fard al Ain or individual obligation if only one person is p re s e n t on the s c en e .3 6
C rim e s are d iv id e d into two c a te g o rie s , H a q q A l l a h o r crim es i n v o lv in g public rights and H a q q A d a m i o r c rim e s in v o lv in g p r iv a te rights. H a d d p u n is h m e n ts c o m e u n d e r the c a te g o ry o f p u b l i c r ig h t s . P u b l ic r i g h t is g i v e n p r e f e r e n c e to p r i v a t e
^ K h a d d u r i , 1984, pp. 148-9; for details see, Tuhfat al Hukkam of Shaykh
‘Asim al-Andalusi, Gift for the Judges translated into English by Bello Muhammad Daura, Zaria, 1989, pp. 9-14 and 16-7
•^^Baroody, George M. ‘Shari’ah Law of Islam’ in Aramco Journal, 1962, pp. 27- 36 at p. 31
3 6 The Encyclopaedia o f Islam, edited by M. Th. Houtsma, A. J. Wensinck, H.A.R. Gibb, W. Heffening and E. Levi Provencal, Leyden and London, 1934, Vol.
IV, p. 261
r i g h t s . 3 7 In cases involving c orporal p u n ish m e n t o f H a a a A l l a h it is rec o m m e n d e d th at w itnesses rem ain s ile n t.3 8
K h a d d u ri p r o p o u n d s th at th e e x p e rie n c e o f Isla m in p r o c e d u r a l j u s t i c e d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t m a n in e a r l i e r s o c i e t i e s w a s m o re h a b i t u a l l y i n c l i n e d to t r u s t th e j u d g e w h o e n j o y s a g o o d r eputation than the ju d ic ia l system . A lth o u g h the stru c tu re o f the Court was prim ordial, the qualities o f the ju d g e w ere defined with p a rtic u la r care. T h e ju d g e was the central figure in th e ju d ic ia l p ro ce ss. T h e j u d g e is O adi 'adl o r j u s t j u d g e and lik e w ise the w itness is S h a h i d 'a d l o r j u s t w itn ess, b e c a u s e ’adl (justic e ) is s econd only to faith as the highest quality a m an should possess, w ere he to be cho sen a ju d g e o r a witness. L ik e the ju d g e , the w itness o r S h a h i d . w hose te s tim o n y is c o n s id e r e d the o b je c tiv e e v id e n c e , A l - b a v v i n a . on the strength o f which the ju d g e m akes decision, m ust be a person o f good character, i.e. S h a h id 'a d l . T he m in im u m requirem e nt is th at he m u st display j u s tn e s s at the tim e w h e n his te s tim o n y is pro v id e d . It seem s th at the e a rly ju r i s ts w ere m o re c o n c e rn e d with the tru th fu ln e s s o f th e j u d g e and the w itn esse s, a s su m in g that m oral and truthful p e rs o n s w o u ld spe ak th e tru th .
L a t e r j u r i s t s l ai d d o w n f u r t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d s p e c i f i e d conditions for witness testim ony. Ibn R ushd (520 H ./1126 A .D .-595 H./1198 A.D.), a Maliki judge, stated that the witness m ust be a free and adult believer, and above all he must be ju st a ccording to the Q u r ’anic Sura 65:2. Som e jurists agreed that a sinful person, i.e. a F a s i q s h o u ld not q u a lify e ve n i f he r e p e n te d , a lth o u g h m o s t
3 7 Shaheed, Abdul Qader ‘Oudad, Criminal Law o f Islam, Karachi, 1987, Vol. I, pp. 110-1
3877ie Encyclopaedia o f Islam, 1934, Vol. IV, p. 261
25
j u r i s t s w e re in c lin e d to a c c e p t t e s t im o n y i f th e w itn e s s h a d r e p e n t e d . ^9 In the w ords o f the S e c o n d K h a lif a U m a r ibn al K h a tta b , all M u s lim s are c re d ib le w itn e s s e s e x c e p t th o se w ho have suffered stripes for offences with fixed pe n a ltie s, i.e. H u d u d o f f e n c e s , s u c h as h a v in g b e e n p r o v e n to h a v e g i v e n f a ls e te s tim o n y , o r b e in g s u s p e c te d o f p a r t i a l it y on th e g r o u n d o f relationship, w h e th e r o f blood or o f p a tro n a g e .4 0
T h e i n s t i tu t io n o f w itn e s s t e s tim o n y to o k a f o rm a l fo rm o f S h a h a d a in 174 H ./790 A.D. This institution is different from the ab o v e -m e n tio n e d w itn ess tes tim o n y o f lay p e rs o n and M u z a k k i . T h is in s t i tu t io n c o n s is t e d o f a p r o c e d u r e in w h ic h th e j u d g e asce rta in ed the reliability o f an individual and r e c o g n ised him as a tru th fu l w itn e s s w h o se te s tim o n y c o u ld not, in p r in c ip le , be d o u b te d . T h e p a rtie s c o u ld at the s a m e tim e c a ll t h e i r o w n w itn e s s e s b u t the te s tim o n y o f th e s e w itn e s s e s w as at risk o f being discarded. T he system o f S h a h a d a o r ig in a lly was d e v e lo p e d to p r o t e c t th e v a l i d i t y o f t h e l e g a l a c ts o f t r a n s a c t i o n s , ju d g e m e n ts , etc. L a te r the in stitu tio n b e c a m e a n e c e s s a ry part o f the ju d ic ia l system . Its prim ary fu n ctio n w as to pro v id e w itnesses to the hea rin g s and the ju d g e m e n t in the suit. T h is institution is firm ly established in the Hanafi, M aliki, and the Shafei school o f t h o u g h t .
T h e re was no p recise regulation as to the n u m b e r o f w itnesses a j u d g e could hear. It s eem ed to dep e n d on the c o n s id e r a tio n o f
practical expediency and the opinion o f the ju d g e . It appears that
^ K h a d d u r i, 1984, pp. 145-8
4 ®Fyzee, A modern approach to Islam, Delhi, 1981, p. 43
a m in im u m o f two w itn esse s was required, b u t in p r a c tic e fo u r w itnesse s used to rem ain prese n t.4 *
1.4 L a w o f E v i d e n c e in P a k i s t a n a n d B a n g l a d e s h
It appears that the m aterials on the law o f e v id e n c e in P a k ista n and B angladesh are available in the form o f statutes and case law f o r th e p r o c e d u r e in t h e C o u r t , a n d th e a u th o r s p e r s o n a l k n o w le d g e fo r p ro ce d u re ou tsid e the C ourt w hic h is acq u ired by prac tisin g as a law yer in c h a m b e r for a year. T h e clie nts related t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s in i n fo r m a l c o n v e r s a t i o n s . T h e o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e in th is t h e s i s f r o m p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s r e g a r d i n g different aspects o f w iness testim ony could form the basis o f field w ork for further work o f this kind. T h e re are m u ltitu d e s o f cases b u t few c le a rly e n u n c ia te d p r in c i p le s .42 T he p rin c ip a l ca use for th is s ta te o f a ff a ir s is p e r h a p s the f a i l u r e to g iv e a d e q u a te a tt e n ti o n to the b a s ic c o n c e p t s w h ic h a re r e q u i r e d f o r th e satisfactory elaboration and e x p o sitio n o f the rules o f evidence.
P a k is ta n at p r e s e n t fo llo w s O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t . 1984, as the general law o f evid e n c e , as m e n tio n e d in the intro d u c tio n . Som e o th e r p ro v is io n s o f the law o f e v id e n c e are c o n ta in e d in the special law o f H u d u d O rdinance o f 1979 in Pakistan.4 ^ B a n g la d e s h adheres to the E v id e n ce Act o f 1872 with such a m endm ents from tim e to tim e as se em e d n e c e s s a ry . O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t is the revised, am ended and consolidated form o f E v id e n ce Act, 1872. It has b r o u g h t th e law o f e v i d e n c e into c o n f o r m i t y w ith th e
4 *Tyan, Emile, ‘Judicial Organisation’ in Law in the Middle East, edited by Majid Khadduri and Herbert J. Liesbeny, Washington D.C., 1955 re 1984, Vol.
I, pp. 236-278 at pp. 253-254.
4 2 Montrose, J. L. ‘Basic Concepts of ... ’ 1992 at p. 347
4 3 s e e chapter 2.3.2 for the rules of law of evidence introduced by the H u d u d O rdinance.
27
in ju n c tio n s o f Isla m as la id in th e Q u r ’an a n d the P r o p h e tic T ra d itio n s. A lm ost all the p ro v is io n s o f the E v id e n c e A ct, 1872, have been kept intact with a few am endm ents b e cause it has been said that m ost o f the p ro v is io n s o f the E v id e n c e A ct w ere not r e p u g n a n t to I s l a m i c p r i n c i p l e s o f law , a n d t h a t v e ry fe w a m e n d m e n ts w ere r eq u ired to b r in g it into c o n fo r m ity w ith the tenets o f Islam. Som e o f the am endm ents in the E v idence Act are o f form al nature only and do n o t seem to have c h a n g ed any rule o f law at all.
E v id e n ce as defined in article 2(c) o f the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t and s e ctio n 3 o f the E v id e n c e A c t is a) oral e v id e n c e o f w itn esse s re le v a n t to the m atte rs o f fac t u n d e r e n q u iry w h ic h th e C o u rt p e rm its o r re q u ires to be m a d e b e fo r e it, and b) d o c u m e n ta r y ev idence produced fo r the inspection o f the Court.
T h e d e fin itio n o f oral and d o c u m e n ta r y e v id e n c e w o u ld in clu d e he a rs a y and c ir c u m s ta n tia l e v id e n c e th at c o u ld b e p r o v e n o rally o r by d ocum ent. D o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e in clu d e s all p rim a ry and s e c o n d a r y f o r m o f e v i d e n c e . 4 4 A lt h o u g h t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f e v id e n c e does n o t include e x h ib ite d o bjects, ofte n the in stru m e n t t h r o u g h w hic h c rim e is c o m m it t e d o r th in g s r e c o v e r e d d u r in g inquiry are e xhibited in the Courts a ccording to article 71 o f the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t and s e c t i o n 60 o f t h e E v i d e n c e A ct.
A s s u m p t i o n s , h o w e v e r l o g i c a l , c a n n o t t a k e t h e p l a c e o f e v i d e n c e .
4 4 also see arts. 70, 71 and 72 of the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t . 1984 and ss. 59, 60 and 61 of the Evidence Act, 1872
4 5 Muhammad Sarwar v. Federal Government of Pakistan 1988 P Cr. L J 213 at p.
235 [Lahore]
H u d u d O rdinance for H a d d 4 6 offence allow ed a C ourt to co n v ict on th e testim o n y o f a c e rta in n u m b e r o f e y e w itn e sse s o r on th e a c c u s e d ’s c o n fe s s io n . T h e C o u rt, h o w e v e r, c a n e s tim a te th e p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f any o th e r k in d o f e v id e n c e , in s te a d o f r e s tr ic tin g its e lf to e y e w itn e ss te s tim o n y o r c o n fe s s io n , f o r d e te r m in in g T a z i r p u n ish m e n t fo r o ffe n c e s fa ilin g to re a c h th e stage o f H a d d offence.
O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t and the E v id en ce A c t do n o t d e fin e w itn ess te stim o n y . T h e ab ility o f a w itn e ss to te s tify can be c o n s tru e d from various articles o f the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t and sections o f the E vidence A ct. A rticle 2 on fact, and article 71 and article 3 on w ho m ay te stify o f O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t and sectio n 3 on fa c t, and sectio n 60 and section 118 on who m ay testify o f the E vidence A ct re a d to g e th e r w o u ld m ean th at a w itn e s s is a p e rso n w ho is c o n s c io u s to p e rc e iv e fac ts w h ich s/h e is ab le to d e p o se . T he p ro ce d u re to testify a fact is laid dow n in c h a p te r X o f b o th the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t and the E v id en ce A ct on th e e x a m in atio n o f w i t n e s s e s .
T h e case law is still in the tran sitio n al p erio d o f developm ent. T he c a se law p en d in g b e fo re the p ro m u lg a tio n o f O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t is g u id e d by th e E v id e n c e A ct. T h e re w o u ld seem to be an am alg am atio n o f the tw o co d ified law s p re v a le n t in the c a se law . As w hen a law is a lte re d , d u rin g a p e n d e n cy o f an a ctio n , th e rig h ts o f the parties are to be decid ed ac co rd in g to the law as it e x is te d w hen th e a c tio n w as ta k e n , u n le s s th e n e w A c t o r a m e n d m e n t e x p re ssly show s c le a r in te n tio n to vary su c h rig h ts ,
4 ^see chapter 2.3.2
29
w ith re tro s p e c tiv e e ff e c ts .4 ^ Since the O a n u n - e - S h a h a d a t w as n o t in te n d e d to h a v e r e tr o s p e c tiv e e f f e c t, th e p r o c e d u r e a lr e a d y p r e v a le n t in th e p e n d in g c a se s c o n tin u e d an d c o u ld n o t be t e r m i n a t e d .
1 .4 .1 P r a c t i c e o f t h e L a w o f E v i d e n c e in P a k i s t a n a n d B a n g l a d e s h
T h e g e n e ra l tre n d in P a k ista n and B a n g la d e sh is to fo llo w th e b e s t e v id e n c e , q u a lify in g th e sam e w ith e x c lu s io n a ry ru le s. T h e e x c lu sio n a ry ru le s are th a t d ire c t oral e v id e n c e e x c lu d e s h e a rsa y e v id e n c e , d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e e x c lu d e s o r a l e v id e n c e an d p r i m a r y e v i d e n c e e x c l u d e s s e c o n d a r y e v i d e n c e . T h e s e e x c lu s io n a ry ru le s are n o t c o n tra d ic to ry to th e Isla m ic law . In tra d itio n a l Islam ic law o ral ev id e n c e is p re fe rre d . T h is is d ue to th e fa c t th at Isla m ic law d e v e lo p e d at a tim e w h en d o c u m e n ts w ere in rare use. T he Q u r’an, the p rim ary so u rc e o f Islam ic law a lw a y s p re fe rre d d o c u m e n ta ry e v id e n c e .48 It seem s from the case law th a t a system is e v o lv in g w hich is ta k in g an in te rm e d ia te c o u rs e b e tw e e n tra d itio n a l a ir tig h t r u le s a n d th e p ro p o s e d th e o ry o f free p ro o f o f Jerem y B en th am . It m ay be m e n tio n e d th a t th e re does n o t seem to be any d e b a te in issu e on th e free p ro o f theory e ith e r o f Jerem y B entham o r o f Jo n a th a n L. C ohen in th ese tw o c o u n tries. F ree p ro o f m ean s an a b sen c e o f fo rm al
4 ^ Ali Gul and 3 others v. The State 1980 P Cr. L J. 1190 at p. 1195 [Karachi], this observation is made in terms of section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. But as a rule it is applicable to all amendments and existing laws in force.
4 8 see chapters 1.3 and 2.1.1.4
ru le s th a t in te rfe re w ith fre e e n q u iry and n a tu ra l o r co m m o n - s e n se r e a s o n in g .4 9
T he C ourts m ay o r m ay not follow the rules e x c lu d in g p a rties and o th e rs as w itn e s s e s on g ro u n d s o f in te r e s t o r u n r e lia b ility . T h o u g h th e term v e ra c ity still ap p ears in the s ta tu te s , th e C ourts are m ore c o n c e rn e d w ith th e tru th fu ln e s s o f th e sta te m e n t. E ach case is a ssessed on its ow n m erits on the p ro b ativ e v a lu e o f the e v id e n c e . T h e p ro b a tiv e v a lu e o f e v id e n c e is w e ig h e d in th e C o u rts o f P a k is ta n a n d B a n g la d e s h , it s e e m s , b y o r d in a r y p ro b a b ility . It is p re s u m e d th a t th e ru le s o f e v id e n c e a p p ly u n ifo rm ly th ro u g h o u t P a k ista n and B a n g la d e sh as it a p p e ars in the sta tu te and case law . T h is p resu m p tio n is to a c e rta in e x te n t tru e as fa r as C o u rts o f law are c o n c e rn e d , b u t th e p ic tu re is d iffe re n t in th e v illag e s. T he hu g e m ass o f th e v illa g e p e o p le in d a ily lif e r e s o lv e c a s e s by s h a 1 i s h 5 0 o r a r b i t r a ti o n in p a n c h a v a t s ^ 1 o r v illa g e c o u n c ils . H e re p e rh a p s J o n a th a n L.
C o h e n ’s free p ro o f th eory is in ap p lic atio n in its peak. It seem s th at m o st o f th e v illa g e p e o p le are u n a w a re o f the in tric a c ie s o f ru le s o f e v id e n c e in th e le g a l w o rld . T h o u g h v illa g e p e o p le in s titu te m u rd e r c a se s, land d isp u te s, etc. in a C o u rt, th e re are in s ta n c e s w h e re m u rd e r on lan d d isp u te is s e ttle d by p a y in g c o m p e n sa tio n to the a g g rie v ed p arty . T h is co u ld be co m p ared to
^ T w i n i n g , William, Rethinking evidence, Exploratory essays, Oxford, 1 9 9 0 , p . 1 9 4
^ A d n a n , Shapan, Annotation o f Village Studies in Bangladesh and West Bengal: A Review o f Socio Economic Trends over 1942-88, Dhaka, 1990, pp.
175-8; People in Pakistan also resort to arbitration at village level.
The literal meaning of the Sanskrit word pan ch av at is coming together of five persons. Council, meeting, court consisting of five or more members of a village or caste assembled to judge disputes or determine group policy is included in the meaning of panchayat; defined in the Glossary of the Law and Society R eview 1968-1969, Vol. Ill, No. 2, pp. 463-468 at p. 466.
3 1
