Chance witness

  1. The statements of the witnesses were not relied upon by the first appellate Court as the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded after one month from the date of occurrence — Both of them are chance witnesses — Their evidence cannot be given much importance in light of Ex. ‘DA’. This unrebutted evidence was rightly relied upon by the first appellate Court. Asia Bibi & 5 others v. Ghazanfar Ali & 3 others 2005 SCR 1 (E)
  2. While appreciating the evidence of a chance witness the Court should be cautious and ensure that the statement of chance witness finds corroboration from other evidence — The evidence of chance witness should be scrutinized very carefully — It does not mean that his testimony should be acted upon only if the same is corroborated by independent evidence — If it finds corroboration from any other circumstances or from any other evidence in the form of recoveries and medical evidence then it can be relied upon. M. Khurshid Kh. v. M. Basharat 2007 SCR 1 (F) 2001 SCR 240 rel.
  3. If a chance witness reasonably explains his presence at the place of occurrence and states about the occurrence in such a way that it inspires confidence and is also corroborated by any other evidence or circumstance the same be considered along with other circumstantial evidence. Muhammad Khurshid Khan  v. Muhammad Basharat & another  2007 SCR 1 (G) PLJ 1988 Cr.C 522 relied
  4. Where the chance witness is otherwise absolutely independent and named in the F.I.R., his deposition is supported by recovery of incriminating article then of course he could not be disbelieved. M. Khurshid Khan v. M. Basharat 2007 SCR 1 (I)  1971 SCMR 655 rel.
  5. Where a witness is chance witness and is highly interested in the deceased person, his evidence cannot be considered to be worthy of credit. Niaz Ahmed v. The State & 2 others 2008 SCR 326 (B) PLJ 1990 Cr.C. 346 & 1995 SCMR 896 rel.
  6. While relying upon the testimony of chance witness the Court should be more cautious — Merely on the statement of a chance witness conviction should not be awarded to a person. Niaz Ahmed v. The State & 2 others 2008 SCR 326 (C) PLJ 1999 Cr.C. 747, AIR 1925 lah.397, 2005 P.Cr.L.J. 1135 & 2003 SCMR 1419 rel.
  7. Enmity of the eye-witness is admitted — He himself remained accused in a murder case — Capital punishment or life imprisonment cannot be awarded on the sole statement of such a person. Niaz Ahmed v. The State & 2 others 2008 SCR 326 (D)
  8. Murder case — Contention of the convict-appellant that all the eyewitnesses are chance witnesses and it is not safe to award the death sentence as Qisas while relying upon their statements. Held: that merely on the ground that the eyewitnesses are the chance witnesses the case of the prosecution cannot be smashed out especially, when the prosecution has succeeded to prove the presence of the witnesses, satisfactorily. However, if the prosecution failed to establish their presence at the relevant time then the corroboration was necessary for making the evidence admissible. Further held: It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of the chance witnesses should be carefully examined. Ghazanfar Ali v. The State & another 2015 SCR 1042 (B)
  9.  The testimony of a chance witness is a week type of evidence which cannot be relied upon without strong corroboration. A. Majeed v. M. Latif 2016 SCR 1306 (D) 2008 SCR 326 & 2015 SCR 1042 ref.
  10.  —for a chance witness, important factor is reasonable explanation for his presence at the place of occurrence. Waqas Abid  v. Sajid Hussain & 3 others 2020 SCR 520 (D) 2007 SCR 1 ref
  11.   —testimony of—if a chance witness reasonably explains his presence at the place of occurrence then the statement of such witness can be considered along with other circumstantial evidence. Waqas Abid  v. Sajid Hussain & 3 others 2020 SCR 520 (C)
error: Content is protected !!