Witnesses

  1. No specific number of witnesses is necessary to prove a criminal case — Solitary witness is sufficient if his statement is corroborated by other circumstances. Noor Ahmad  v. The State 1992 SCR 1 (C)
  2. It is not the duty of the prosecution to produce each and every witness cited in the calendar of challan — It depends upon the will of prosecution to produce such witness whom it deems necessary for proving the guilt of the accused. Abdul Aziz  v. M. Lal & others 2000 SCR 375 (A)
  3. It is true that prosecution is not bound no produce all the witnesses who have seen the occurrence — If a material witness is withheld then interference is to be drawn against the prosecution that such witness was not supporting the case of the prosecution. Muhammad Siddique v. The State and another 2003 SCR 269 (B)
  4. It is not mandatory for the prosecution to produce all the witnesses cited by it in the calendar of witnesses — However if a material witness is withheld the presumption can be taken against the prosecution that if such witness is produced would not support the case of the prosecution. Muhammad Shabir v. The State 2003 SCR 486 (B)
  5. Non-production of independent witness by complainant party — Loses importance when accused party was attributed injuries by the complainant party — No person was cited as defence witness by accused party to contradict the prosecution story. Liaqat Ali & 2 others v. Raja Shahid Nawaz & 2 others 2006 SCR 365 (H)
  6. Where the witnesses are inimical to accused persons the Court has to more cautious and on double alert while sifting the truth from the falsehood — Testimony of inimical and interested witnesses has to be deeply appreciated to find out the truth. Muhammad Yaqub v. The State and another 2007 SCR 332 (A)
  7. Non-production of all the witnesses with the prosecution — its effect — Held: there is no cavil with the proposition that all the witnesses cited in the calendar of witnesses are not necessary to be produced in the Court as the same is also discretion of the prosecution to examine the witness of its own choice. Further held: Non-production of the best evidence available with the prosecution may be justified on some reasonable grounds may be deputed to some justifiable cause. Muhammad Babar v. State through Advocate General 2014 SCR 1585 (C)
  8. Relationship of witnesses — Held: It is now settled that testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship. Karamat Hussain v. State & another 2015 SCR 1007 (A&C)  2014 P.Cr.Lj 312 rel.
  9. Examine of each and every witness cited in the calendar of witnesses — Effect & scope of — Held: It is not necessary for the prosecution to examine each and every witness cited in the calendar of witnesses. It is sweet-will of the prosecution to examine the witnesses of his own choice. Karamat Hussain v. State & another 2015 SCR 1007 (B)
  10. Murder case — Statement of witnesses — Father of the witnesses has enmity with the convict-appellant — Effect of — The contention of the convict-appellant is that the statement of the witness is also not reliable as his father has enmity with the convict-appellant — Held: If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that his father had any ill-will or animosity against the convict-appellant, even then that cannot be made basis to discard the said witness. Ghazanfar Ali v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1042 (C)
  11. Murder case — All the witnesses are closely related to each other — Effect of their statements — Held: It is settled principle of law that mere relationship is not ground for discarding the evidence of a witness. Ghazanfar Ali v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1042 (D) 2014  P.Cr.LJ 312 rel.
  12. Held: The testimony of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basis of relationship, however, the testimony of an inimical witness has to be looked into with great care and caution. Zaffar Hussain Malik v Abdul Salam & 5 others 2015 SCR 1090 (A)
  13. Related witnesses — Contention of the convict-appellant is that all the PWs are close relatives, therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon. Held: that mere relationship cannot be made a ground for discarding the evidence when no ill-will or animosity against the convict has been brought on record. Muhammad Riaz v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1114 (A)  Karam Dad v. Javed & others criminal appeal No. 25 of 2011 decided on 23.2.2015 rel.
  14. Non-production of all the witnesses cited in the calendar of witnesses — effect of — Held: it is settled principle of law that the discretion lies with the prosecution to examine the witnesses of its own choice and the prosecution cannot be compelled to examine each and every witness cited in the calendar of witnesses.  Even otherwise, the witnesses who have been forgiven or not examined are not the material witnesses. Said Akbar & another v. Sardar Ghulam Hussain 2015 SCR 1487 (B) Karamat Hussain vs. The State (criminal appeal No. 10  of  2012  decided  on 16. 05. 2015)  rel.
  15.  —producing and examining of witnesses is prerogative of prosecution—the same cannot be compelled to produce all witnesses cited in the calendar of witnesses—The learned counsel for the convict are of the view that the prosecution withheld a number of witnesses due to the reason that they were not supportive to the prosecution’s version. It may be stated that this Court has held in a number of cases that it is a sole prerogative of the prosecution to examine the witnesses of its own choice and the prosecution cannot be compelled to produce each and every witness cited in the calendar of the witnesses. Iftikhar Khan v. The State & 3 others 2020 SCR 177 (E)
  16.  —prerogative of prosecution to produce witnesses mentioned in list of witnesses—Held: it may be observed that under law it is not mandatory for the prosecution to produce before the Court each and every witness cited in the calendar of witnesses. Khalid Mehmood & others v. Nasir Iqbal & others 2020 SCR 272 (C) 
  17.  —list of witnesses—effect of non-producing of two eyewitnesses out of four witnesses—abandoned witnesses, later were produced by  the defence—Contention that abandoning of two eye witnesses and later producing same by the defence makes the case doubtful—Held: non-production of witnesses does not make case doubtful, in circumstances—the abandoned witnesses, produced by the defence and recorded their statements—the witnesses admitted the manner of the occurrence—After going through the  statements of the defence witnesses, it becomes clear that they almost supported the prosecution version. Thus, in such state of affairs, when the defence himself produced the witnesses abandoned by the prosecution and they supported the prosecution story, it cannot be said that their non-production by the prosecution makes the case doubtful. Khalid Mehmood & others v. Nasir Iqbal & others 2020 SCR 272 (D)
  18. —Examination of—see Syed Kamran Hussain v.State & another 2022 SCR 365 (I)
  19. —Murder case —‘interested and related witnesses’—distinction of— both terms have entirely distinct concepts— interested witness need not necessarily be a related but it is the person who has such a motive on account of enmity or any other consideration  has prepared himself to depose falsely—term ‘related’ is positive— the term ‘interested’ has a concept to gain favour for whom or what he/she is interested with— although the burden is always upon the prosecution to prove truthfulness of a related witness but where the defense claims the witness as ‘interested’, the burden shifts upon defense to establish that such witness had a motive on account of enemity  which compelled him to depose falsely. Syed Kamran Hussain v. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (K) 2011 SCMR 429 & 2001 SCR 240 ref
  20. —Discrepancies—nature of—minor contradictions are pretty much natural to be expected in the statements—the discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. Syed Kamran Hussain v. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (O)
  21. —non-recording of statements of independent witnesses who did not support prosecution’s story—witnesses produced were inimical towards accused—mala fide on part of prosecution—SHO admitted in his statement that the independent witnesses did not support the version of prosecution, therefore, their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. were not recorded and not produced before the Court—prosecution case doubtful–Held: statement clearly shows the made-fide on the part of the prosecution that despite the availability of the independent witnesses, only related witnesses were produced before the Court. It is settled principle of law that where witness is inimical to accused and there is no independent corroboration of such witness, then it makes the prosecution case doubtful. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (C) 2014 SCR 121; PLD 1962 SC 269; 2011 SCMR 513 rel.
  22. —Absence of details required under law, in inquest report and FIR—casts serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case against the accused and claim of the witnesses regarding witnessing of occurrence— the brief history of the crime is required to be incorporated in a specific column of the inquest report—in FIR only name of the complainant is mentioned, names of accused and witnesses not mentioned—FIR number is also not mentioned— Such circumstances cast serious doubts about the veracity of prosecution case. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (D) 2003 SCR 1588 & 2020 SCMR 505 rel.
  23. — examination of — criminal trial — it is sole discretion of prosecution to examine the witnesses of its own choice and the prosecution cannot be compelled to produce each and every witness. Muhammad Pervaiz & others v. State & others 2023 SCR 563 (D) 2015 SCR 1487 ref.
  24. — production of — criminal trial — prosecution is not bound to produce each and every witness cited in the calendar of witnesses — if any witness is not available for any reason, the whole evidence corroborated by co-witnesses cannot be thrashed away. Tanvir Ahmed Bhatti v. State & others 2023 SCR 514 (B)
error: Content is protected !!