ARTICLE 67:

67. In criminal cases previous good character relevant. In criminal proceedings the fact that the
person accused is of a good character is relevant. In criminal proceedings, a mans character is often a matter of importance in (a) explaining his conduct and (b) judging his innocence or criminality. The accused can adduce evidence of his good character for the purposes of proving that he is innocent. For example, where an accused in a bribery case produces evidence of good character and, if it appears to the Court that a person possessing such character would not be likely to act as such, such improbability must be taken into account in determining the question whether or not there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Good character proved by the accused must be of the specific kind impeached The good character proved by the accused must be of the specific kind impeached e.g. honesty when dishonesty is alleged. Similarly, if a person is charged with theft, then it would be irrelevant for him to provide evidence of his being a calm and composed person. Weak type of evidence Evidence of good character is a weak type of evidence it cannot outweigh positive evidence in regard to guilt of a person. It may be useful in doubtful cases to tilt the balance in favour of the accused, but cannot replace positive direct evidence. For example, evidence of good character and the fact that the accused is an educated man belonging to a good family, would render it prima facie unlikely that he committed crimes of violence, yet this presumption cannot be given great weightage if the direct evidence points to the guilt of the accused.

ARTICLE 68:
68. Previous bad character not relevant, except in reply. In criminal proceedings fact that the
accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant. Explanation 1 This Article does not apply to cases in which bad character of any person is itself a fact in issue. Explanation 2 A previous conviction is relevant as evidence of bad character. General Rule: The Prosecution cannot adduce evidence of an accuseds bad character. Rationale The reason is that i) The prosecution must prove the guilt of accused with the necessary evidence in support of the charge. But the prosecution cannot take the help of bad character of the accused in order to establish its case.

ii) iii)

lf the prosecution is allowed to prove bad character of the accused, then that would prejudice the mind of the Court, make the Court biased against the accused and the Court may come to the conclusion that he has committed the offence in question. This would prejudice the fair trial to which the accused is entitled. (Violation of Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan)

Exceptions: (a) To disprove the evidence of good character If the accused opts to adduce evidence of his good character, then the prosecution can disprove that evidence by adducing evidence of his bad character. Hence, the accused generally has a shield against evidence of his bad character being given in Court, however, the same may be broken by the prosecution if he himself opts to provide evidence of his good character. Example: Person's criminal character Under Article 27, evidence of a persons criminal character or general disposition to do a particular act is not relevant for the purposes of proving that particular offence. It is only admissible to show the state of mind of the accused when that is in issue. Hence, an accuseds previous conviction may be adduced under Article 27 only to show the state of mind of the accused but not to prove the offence itself. Evidence of pending criminal proceedings Evidence of other pending criminal proceedings against the accused is not evidence of bad character since it does not prove anything against the accused as far as a particular offence under trial is concerned. (b) The bad character is itself a fact in issue Explanation 1: where the bad character is itself a fact in issue, then this Article does not apply (i.e. the prosecution can adduce evidence of previous convictions to prove that issue). For example, in security proceedings under Section 109 119 CrPC, or in proceedings under Section 400 PPC (habitual offender). (c)When a fact is otherwise relevant, it can be submitted even if incidentally reveals the character of the accused (d)Relevancy of previous conviction (i) It is relevant as proof of bad character in the above two cases. According to Lord Denning: "Previous convictions are a class in itself. They are the raw material upon which bad reputation is built up. They have taken place in an open court and are of public knowledge. They are very different from previous misconducts that are not tried in a court and which therefore might lead to dispute. But previous convictions offer no possibility of such disputes and so are relevant and admissible. " (ii) If the accused is liable to enhanced punishment under S. 75 PPC on account of previous conviction, then the fact that accused has been previously convicted of an offence is admissible as evidence of his bad character.