Khizer Hayat Judgment: Whether An Escape From The Responsibility To Sift Grain From The Chaff?

The article examines critically the Khizer Hayat judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan whereby the falsus rule was made applicable to judicial proceedings across Pakistan. It will trace the history of the rule in common law jurisdiction, particularly those of Britain and India. Moreover, it will suggest that the judgment goes to great lengths to discuss the application of falsus in murder cases where a witness willfully implicates innocent along with guilty to seek revenge, however, it leaves no margin for mistake or memory lapse as an explanation for incorrect testimony. Additionally, it will assert that the reliance of the Supreme Court on Islamic injunctions to justify falsus rule is misplaced because the quoted Hadith and Quranic injunctions only condemn the false testimony, nowhere do they require disbelieving a witness who tells a lie in one part of his statement. In the end, the article will conclude that the issue of false testimony was well taken care of under Pakistan’s jurisprudence before Khizer Hayat. As proof, Justice Munir in his famous judgment Crown v. Ghulam Muhammad (1951) set forth the rule, if a witness is caught in a lie about a materiel part, his rest of the statement may be disbelieved unless strongly corroborated by circumstances or other available evidence. It will be suggested that Ghulam Muhammad’s doctrine should be revived, otherwise, the impression may take roots that the courts are shying away from their responsibility to sift grain from chaff