Appreciation of evidence

  1. No doubt appreciation of evidence is not the duty of the Supreme Court — However, this Court does examine the evidence to see whether there has been any gross misreading or non-reading which may have resulted in miscarriage of justice. Muhammad Banaras v.The State 2008 SCR 552 (C) 1997 SCR 206 rel.
  2. An appellate Court should not embark upon the re-appreciation of entire evidence but should confine its considerations only to the extent of infirmities of the judgment of trial Court and should ensure that conviction may not be sustainable under law. Ch. Muhammad Riasat and another v. Muhammad Asghar & another 2010 SCR 1 (F)
  3. Bail — Grant of — Prosecution has relied upon two witnesses who have seen accused at night and also relied upon statements of two witnesses who have seen the deceased in the company of accused before the occurrence. At the bail stage no comments can be made upon the testimony of witnesses. Held: — Prima-facie the statements of these witnesses do not connect the accused-appellant with the offence. Abdul Khaliq v. State and other 2010 SCR 402 (E)
  4. Extra-judicial confession — Evaluation — The extra-judicial confession is the weakest type of evidence and conviction cannot be recorded on such type of evidence — That can only be relied upon if strong corroboration comes on the record. Munawar Hussain and 2 others v. Imran Waseem and another 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 374 (A), 1992 SCR 1, 2009 SCR 252 Ref.
  5. Report of ballistic expert — Evidentiary value — In the cases of direct evidence, corroboratory evidence like report of ballistic expert is not important, but in the case where presence of eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence is doubtful, the ballistic expert’s report has a bearing on the case. Qadir Baksh and others  v. The State 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 439 (A)
  6. Statement of a witness, which is against the pleadings, cannot be relied upon — Rule. Maqsood Ahmed v. Faiza Riaz 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1119 (A)
  7. Acquittal appeal — the principles regarding appreciation of evidence in appeal against acquittal are much different than the appeal against conviction. Ali M. v. M. Akram  2014 SCR 351 (A) 
  8.  —origin of occurrence shrouded in mystery—dispute between parties, allegedly leading of procession—whereas, as per prosecution’s version some other person i.e., Allah Dita was organizer of procession—clash between convict-accused and deceased remained un-explained. Held:  in the instant case the origin of the occurrence is also shrouded in mystery. Muhammad Idress & 2 others v. State through AdvocateGeneral & 11 others  2020 SCR 200 (A)
  9. —Improvements made by eye witnesses in Court statements — not safe to be relied upon or to maintain conviction— Eyewitnesses in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. deposed Kalashnikov as a crime weapon to support what was alleged in FIR—In Court statements, eye witnesses made improvements and supported post-mortem report, wherein bullet of 30-bore pistol was stated as recovered from skull of deceased— held: Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the eyewitnesses had made improvements in their statements then it is not safe to place reliance on their statements and in that, eventuality, conviction is not sustainable. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (A) 2019 SCMR 631 & 2017 SCMR 344 rel.
  10. —Complainant and eyewitnesses alleged indiscriminate firing which hit wall of mosque, minaret and shade of school— Investigating officer and patwari halqa did not support as alleged, in the site plan, report and Court statements—evidence not reliable— Held: The circumstances make presence of complainant and eyewitnesses highly doubtful, hence, reliance cannot be made on such evidence. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (B) 2010 SCMR 1039; 2019 SCMR 1150; 2015 SCMR 315 rel.
  11. —Wisdom behind strict scrutiny of evidence in criminal case—-so no probability of doubt left behind. Held: the evidence must be scrutinized with due caution and care so that no probability of doubt is left behind but, in a case, where the prosecution story itself is full of visible doubts and loop-holes, then it would be against the principles of criminal jurisprudence and natural justice to rely on the same. Malik Zaffar v. Rashid Hussain Shah & others 2022 SCR 1489 (S)
  12. —improvements in the statements of witnesses—appreciation of such improved evidence—principle—Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the eyewitnesses had made crafty improvements in his statements, then it does not find it safe to rely on his statement. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (A)
  13. —Circumstantial evidence—required corroboration—Held: when the case is of circumstantial evidence, each statement must be corroborated by other evidence because in such cases even a minor contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case of the prosecution. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (S)
  14. — inimical witness — Court should be more cautious in appreciation of evidence of such witness — Held: where the witnesses are inimical to the accused, then the Court has to be more cautious and vigilant in determining the truth. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (G) 1991 PCr.LJ 1997, 2007 SCR 39, PLD 1979 SC (AJ&K) 231 Rel.
  15.  — ocular evidence — witnesses related to complainant and deceased and also had enmity with accused — corroboration and appraisal of evidence is required — Held: Admittedly, the case is of ocular evidence but it is evident from the statement of witnesses, that the eye-witnesses, who have allegedly seen the occurrence, are close relatives of the complainant and the deceased. Moreover, they were involved in previous criminal and civil litigation with the convict-appellant, therefore, the statements of these eyewitnesses are required to be corroborated by the other pieces of evidence and the case has to be carefully appraised. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (A)
  16. — witness — conflict between statement of witness and Tazkia-ul-Shahud report of District Qazi — credibility of evidence of a person with a criminal history — evidence of such witness cannot be relied safely — involvement in heinous offences and a nominated accused in various cases, cannot be relied upon for the testimony safely. Astonishingly, the purgation report of this witness (pw.3) is also available at pages 337 & 338 of the file of the trial Court which reveals that Additional District Qazi, Bhimber, prepared the purgation report, wherein, he stated that pw.3, Shabir Hussain, is a sane adult and has a good reputation in the vicinity, he is not reported to be criminal and also offers prayers regularly. Whereas, in his statement recorded before the trial Court, he admitted that he does not offer prayer nor even he can perform ablution (وضو(, and several FIR were lodged against him. Since the purgation report of the Additional District Qazi runs counter to the statement made by the witness himself, therefore, the said purgation report cannot be relied upon. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (E)
error: Content is protected !!