Related witnesses

  1. The related witnesses cannot be disbelieved as interested witnesses unless they have a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Abdul Khaliq v. Jehangir & another 1999 SCR 330 (C)
  2. Testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship with the complainant or the deceased — In a criminal case, even conviction can be based on the statement of a solitary witness — Conviction can be based on the statement of such a person whose presence at the spot is not disputed and who was in a position to identify the offenders and against whom it cannot be said that there was no possibility of substitution by him — In such a case the statement could be accepted without corroboration. Masood Hussain & 2 others v. Ghazanfar Ali & 3 others 2005 SCR 272 (A)
  3. Appreciation of evidence — Mere fact that the witnesses being related inter se to the deceased is not sufficient to discard their testimony outrightly if such witnesses otherwise found to be witnesses of truth — Witnesses found to be interested and inimical in sense of having a motive to falsely implicate innocent persons from other party must be scrutinized very carefully and cautiously by the Court in order to eliminate the chances of false implication. Liaqat Hussain & another v. Ulfat Khan & another 2007 SCR 39 (D) PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 23 rel.
  4. Testimony of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the basis of relationship unless he is so inimical that he has a motive to falsely implicate the accused persons — The Court should also insist upon independent corroboration of such evidence. M. Yaqub v. The State 2007 SCR 332 (B)
  5. The relationship is no ground for discarding evidence of the witnesses unless and until their enmity with deceased is established. M. Khurshid Khan v. M. Basharat & another 2007 SCR 1 (H)
  6. Evidence of a related witness could not be disbelieved or discarded merely on the basis of relationship unless and until it is not proved that the witness was inimical towards the accused. Muhammad Khurshid Khan  v. Muhammad Basharat & another 2007 SCR 1 (J) 1992 SCR 249, 1999 SCR 330, PLD 1985 Karachi 595 relied.
  7. It is well settled principle of law that mere relationship of witnesses is no ground for discarding the evidence unless and until enmity with accused person is established. Liaqat Hussain & another v. Ulfat Khan & another 2007 SCR 39 (F)
  8. Mere relationship of a witness with the complainant party is no ground for discarding or disbelieving his evidence until and unless he has some enmity with the accused persons. Abdul Rehman & another  v. Muhammad Mushtaq & another 2007 SCR 100 (C) 1992 SCR 249, 1999 SCR 330 and PLD 1985 Kar. 595 relied.
  9. Mere relationship is no ground for discarding evidence of witnesses — Statements recorded by Police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are quite different from the statements deposed by them in the Court — Contradictory statements — The witnesses have improved their statements only for the purpose of benefiting the prosecution — The evidence of such relative witnesses cannot be relied upon.  Arshad Mahmood v. Raja Muhammad Asghar and another 2008 SCR 345 (P)
  10. Appreciation of evidence — Rule — Mere relationship of witnesses inter se or to the deceased is not sufficient to discredit out-rightly their testimony if otherwise such witnesses are found to be the witnesses  of truth and they are not produced and withheld and only the related witness whose testimony is not confidence-inspiring, are produced, the testimony of such witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration and the corroboration shall be of such standard which tends to satisfy the Court that the witnesses have spoken the truth. Qadir Baksh and others v. The State 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 439 (B)
  11. Mere relationship cannot be made a ground to discard the testimony of the witness until some ill-will or animosity of the witness against the accused comes on the record. Said Akbar & another v. Sardar Ghulam Hussain 2015 SCR 1487 (D) Ghazanfar Ali v. The State and others (criminal appeal No.31 of 2011 decided on 13.04.2015) rel.
  12.  —relation with the deceased/prosecution—eye witnesses duly mentioned in FIR—Nothing on record that they had any enmity—Held: it does not appeal to prudent mind that deceased and his heirs let off real culprit and implicate an innocent person— The learned counsel for the convict are of the view that it is a blind murder and the convict has been implicated in the case falsely and the witnesses have been planted just to strengthen the case. The perusal of the record shows that the names of the eyewitnesses are duly mentioned in the FIR and nothing is available on record to show that the witnesses had any enmity towards the convict to falsely implicate him in the commission of offence. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to a prudent mind that the deceased as well as his heirs by letting off the real culprit implicated an innocent person in the case. Iftikhar Khan v. The State & 3 others 2020 SCR 177 (C)
  13.  —related witnesses—cannot be disbelieved until it is proved that they had motive to falsely implicate accused—It is also settled principle of law that the related witnesses cannot be disbelieved as interested witnesses unless and until it is proved that they had a motive to falsely implicate the accused; hence, when nothing is available on record to believe that the witnesses were so inimical that they falsely implicated an innocent person then mere on the ground of relationship their testimony cannot be discarded. Iftikhar Khan v. The State & 3 others 2020 SCR 177 (D)  (Criminal appeal No. 25 of 2019, decided on 20.02.2020) rel
  14.  —testimony of related witness—when not to be believed without independent corroboration—principle—Though, under law mere on the ground of relationship the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded but when some ill-will or animosity of the witnesses against the accused comes on the record, coupled with the withholding of the impartial witnesses by the prosecution, then the testimony of the related witnesses cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration.  Muhammad Idress & 2 others v. State through AdvocateGeneral & 11 others  2020 SCR 200 (D) 2013 SCR 439
  15. —Held: the testimony of the related witnesses can only be discarded if some animosity, ill will etc. is brought on the record. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (L)
  16. —Murder—conviction  of—convict real nephew of deceased—PWS are also related to deceased as well as convict— the evidence of related witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship unless and until any animosity with the accused is established. Moeen Nasim v. The state & another  2022 SCR 855 (E) 2007 SCR 1 ref.
  17.  — interested and related witness — principle to determine partisanship and credibility of witnesses — mechanical rejection of related/interested is not warranted — Held: a witness is normally considered as independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be fainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such an enmity against the accused to wish to implicate him falsely. We are of the view that it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witness should be discarded merely on the ground that it is evidence of a partisan or an interested witness, the mechanical rejection of such evidence on this sole ground that he is related or interested witness would invariably lead to failure of justice. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (B)
  18. — witness were daughters of the deceased and doctor, who conducted post mortem was close relative — Argument: their testimony cannot be relied on — Held: it is not the relationship which makes one a witness of truth or otherwise. It is now a wellsettled principle of law that the evidence of a witness could not be disbelieved or discarded merely on the basis of relationship, unless and until it is proved that the witness was inimical towards the accused. Habib Hussain Shah v. State & others 2023 SCR 442 (D) 2022 SCR 365 rel.
  19. — offence of sodomy — the related witness is the most competent witness in case of sodomy, than others, provided he is not inimical towards accused and has not the motive to implicate the accused in a false case. Aftab Ali versus The State & another 2023 SCR 1069 (F)
error: Content is protected !!