Evidence

  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 Ahmadv. The State 1992 SCR 1 (C)
  2. Confession — Extra judicial confession — Not to be relied upon when made during police custody. Noor Ahmad v. The State 1992 SCR 1 (E)
  3. Testimony of witness is to be appreciated in the peculiar circumstances of each case-observation made in one criminal case do not hold good for another case. Shaukat Hussain  v. The State 1992 SCR 155 (B)
  4. Mere relationship with the deceased no ground to discard the testimony of witness in a criminal case. Shaukat Hussain  v. The State 1992 SCR 155 (C)
  5. Witnesses — The mere fact that the witnesses are related to the deceased is not sufficient to discard their testimony-Especially when they have not been shown inimical to the accused. Muhammad Khalil  v. The State 1992 SCR 249 (B)
  6. Eye-witnesses- being chance witnesses, if the testimony of such a witness rings true it can be relied upon without seeking any corroboration. Muhammad Khalil v. The State 1992 SCR 249 (C)
  7. If a case is otherwise proved the mere fact that a party did not put itself in the witness box — cannot detract from the other proof on the record. M. Suleman v. Mst. Razia Bibi 1992 265 (B)
  8. Prosecution witness — Testimony of — It is well settled principle of law that the testimony of a prosecution witness is not to be discarded merely because of his relationship with the deceased or complainant. Abrar Hussain Shah v. The State 1992 SCR 294
  9. Circumstantial evidence – Evidence should be of such a degree and character that it should exclude the possibility of innocence of an accused. The State v. Mst. Flawat Jan  1992 SCR 366 (B)
  10. A general allegation of misreading or non- reading of evidence would not render the concurrent findings of fact open to challenge — It is necessary for the party to specifically point out the witnesses whose statements were misread and support the contention by certified copies of the said statements. Akhtar Hussain v.  Muhammad Zarin Khan 1993 SCR 114 (A)
  11. ‘Nisab’ — If the ‘Nisab’ required under S. 17(3) of the Hudood Act is lacking, the accused can be convicted under S.20 of the Hudood Act if the offence is otherwise proved. Muhammad Ghalib  v. The State 1993 SCR 122 (B)
  12. Late production of document in evidence defendant was out of country suit was filed through ‘Mukhtar’ who was not in possession of the gift deed. The Courts below allowed to produced the gift deed in evidence subject to payment of cost. No illegality committed in the circumstances of the case. Document allowed to be produced in the evidence. Ghulam Nabi  v. Safdar H. & others 1993 SCR 197 (A)
  13. Points agitated being question of fact — The perusal of the judgment of the Courts below shows that the evidence on these points has thoroughly been scrutinized by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Courts. It was not shown that the findings of the Courts below suffer from any legal infirmity due to non-reading or mis-reading of the evidence — No legal justification to admit petition for leave to appeal. Muhammad Ayub  v. Muhammad Gul Zarin 1993 SCR 290 (A)
  14. Presumption of truth-entries in khasra girdawari not a conclusive proof of title and no presumption of truth attaches to such entries. Muhammad Amin v. Younis 1993 SCR 340 (B)
  15. Cases in which order of Appellate Tribunal is based on inadmissible evidence or irrelevant material High Court may  vitiate such order inadmissible evidence or irrelevant material the order passed by the Tribunal, the High Court in such cases vitiate the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Comissioner Income Tax  v.  M/s. United Builders 1993 SCR 373 (H)
  16. Original file lost — A certified copy of the order issued by the concerned copying agency placed on record it could not be said that it was a case of no evidence. Ghulab Khan & others  v.  Sardar Muhammad Mumtaz Khan and others 1994 SCR 187 (A)
  17. Bail- Statement of witness – view of ballistic expert- it cannot be said at this stage that even if it is assumed that the accused other than Javed Iqbal were present on the spot they cannot be clothed with the vicarious liability is not correct — If their presence on the spot at the odd hours of the night armed with lethal weapons is accepted it cannot be said that they are not primafacie, connected with constructive liability for the commission of offence of murder. Mirza Mir Zaman v. The State 1994 SCR 11 (B)
  18. Medico legal evidence would have been best evidence to show that incident took place- but doctor neither called nor produced as witness — Its effect discussed. Abdul Rahim  v. Muhammad Latif 1994 SCR 25 (A)
  19. Witnesses related and inimical to accused — Civil litigation between the parties — Exchange of abuses no independent witnesses – Non production of Medical Officer as witness makes prosecution case doubtful. Abdul Rahim v. Muhammad Latif 1994 SCR 25 (B)
  20. Documentary evidence — correction of entries in the Revenue Record — No documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate claim nor there is any proof that the allotment of the piece of land was made in his favour — Allotment cancellation of — The correction of entries in the Revenue record does not help the case of appellant. M. Amin  v. M. Yunus 1994 162 (A)
  21. Evidence — Appreciation of evidence by Courts below — Plaintiff-Respondent did not set up the case in plaint which he subsequently tried to prove – contradiction in statement plaint — effect of.  Muhammad Amin  v. Muhammad Yunus 1994 SCR 162 (C)
  22. Khasra gridawri — proof of — entries in Khasra girdawari is not a conclusive proof of the Title and no presumption of truth attaches to such entries. M. Amin  v. M. Yunus 1994 SCR 162 (D)
  23. No misreading or non-reading of evidence pointed out — The normal rule is that this Court would not interfere with the concurrent finding even another view of evidence is possible particularly when the evidence has been correctly appreciated by the Courts below. Ashiq Hussain Shah   & other v. Mst. Fazal Begum & others 1994 SCR 263 (B)
  24. The prosecution has not only to prove the act which resulted in the death of a person but it has also to prove all the ingredients of an offence. Tufail Hussain Shah v. The State  1994 SCR 275 (A)
  25. If there are two hypotheses which are equally possible, one favourable to the accused is to be given preference. Tufail Hussain Shah v. The State 1994 SCR 275 (B)
  26. Appreciation of evidence by the superior Courts — The superior Courts have consistently laid down that in an appeal against an acquittal order the Supreme Court would not on principle ordinarily interfere and shall give a due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused and the Court shall avoid reappraisal of evidence. Abdul Khaliq v. M. Asfar Khan 1995 SCR 144 (B) PLD 1985 SC 11, 1992 SCMR 96, 1993 SCMR 305 relied.
  27. The evidence of witness cannot be measured according to a mathematical formula — Even a literate witness can make a mistake while giving correct direction of the point to relation to an assailant and victim of crime. The probative force of an eye-witness in criminal case depends upon overall effect it creates in the mind of the Court; the minor discrepancies which may crop up in the statement of a witness due to lack of knowledge or power of its perception do not demolish the prosecution case. Muhammad Yunus v. The State 1995 SCR 344 (A)
  28. The statements of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they belonged to the same tribe to which the deceased belonged or were distantly related to him — The view of the Shariat Court that the recovery of the remains of the dead body of the deceased etc. at the instance of the accused-respondent is doubtful because the witnesses and the deceased were from the same tribe or they were distantly related to the deceased cannot be up-held especially so when no enmity was shown to exist between the witnesses and the accused — The recovery was made about 19 days after the murder of the deceased; the dead body decayed due to natural process, but the articles belonging to the deceased found on or near the remains of the dead body e.g. copy of the identity card and the school leaving certificate of the deceased leave no doubt that the remains were of the dead body of the deceased — Thus even if it is accepted that the remains of the dead body could not be identified, the recovery of the articles of the deceased which were found on or near the remains of the dead body coupled with the information furnished to the investigating officer by the accused -respondent which led to the recovery of the remains and articles prove beyond doubt that the remains of dead body were that of the deceased. Usman Khalid v. M. Yunus and another 1996 SCR 197 (B)
  29. A casual assertion by a witness cannot destroy the overall effect of his statement until and unless it is shown that the witness resiled from his contrary depositions given in major part of his statement. Usman Khalid v. Muhammad Yunus and another 1996 SCR 197 (C)
  30. The credibility or otherwise of a witness does not solely depend upon his neutrality, intrestedness or relationship, but upon the fact as to whether he could be a witness and his statement inspires confidence or not. Muhammad Sadiq  v. Raja Muhammad Nasim & others 1996 SCR 215 (C)
  31. This is a settled practice of this Court not to consider evidence in a case if it has not been considered in the High Court or Shariat Court. Sub. Sakha M. Khan v. Tanweer &others 1996 SCR 261 (A)
  32. If a witness is not confronted with his previous statement and no explanation is sought from the witness that contradiction cannot be taken into consideration–Minor contradictions which do not substantially affect the material particulars of the prosecution story cannot be taken into consideration. Azhar Aziz  v. The State 1996 SCR 225 (A) 
  33. Murder case — Re-appraisal of evidence is not a function of this Court — This Court does examine evidence to see whether there has been any gross misreading or non-reading which may have resulted in miscarriage of justice. Shabbir Ahmad  v. The State and another 1997 SCR 206 (A)
  34. Plaintiff in order to succeed must prove his own case and stand on his own legs rather to take advantage of the weaknesses of the case of the other party. Fazal Noor Begum v. Muhammad Akbar & 4 others 1997 SCR 57 (B)
  35. Evidence — producing of — Failure of appellants in producing their evidence although numerous opportunities  have been given — The statement of Office Qanoongo yet remain to be recorded by the trial Court — There is no harm in allowing one of the defendants to get his statement recorded — Case remanded. Shah Muhammad & 8 others v. Shaukat Ali & 17 others 1998 SCR 79 (A)
  36. A piece of evidence or statement of witness which goes against the interests of a particular party and that party does not question the correctness of that assertion or the deposition of the witness it shall be deemed to have been admitted. Farooq Bibi v. A. Khaliq & others 1998 SCR 244 (A)
  37. Shariat Court should not have considered the evidence recorded by the trial Court because it had not been considered by the trial Court itself while deciding the bail matter. Babar Hussain v. Muhammad Rashid Khan and another 1999 SCR 507 (B)
  38. In civil cases unlike the criminal cases the plaintiff has not to prove his case against his opponent beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt — On the other hand if the preponderance or probability of evidence is in favour of a particular party that party is likely to succeed. Muhammad Idrees  v. Mehmood Ahmed & another 2000 SCR 166 (A)
  39. Janaza prayer by ‘Sunni Imam’ — An act which was done after death of the deceased without his permission does not destroy the value of evidence led by respondent. Lal Hussain Shah v. Robina Shaheen and another 2000 SCR 63 (C)
  40. Unlike a criminal case in a civil case a plaintiff is not supposed to prove his case beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt but the Court of law is expected to decide a dispute on the basis of preponderance of evidence — Furthermore when the evidence of both the parties is brought on record, the question of burden of proof becomes immaterial. Muhammad Said Khan and 32 others v. Abdul Qayyum Khan 2000 SCR 594 (A)
  41. Attested copy of mutation was admitted and read into evidence by the trial Court and the first appellate Court without any objection by the respondents, the same cannot be excluded from the evidence merely because the same was not exhibited, the non-exhibiting of a document which is otherwise admissible in evidence is merely an irregularity and does not render such a document as inadmissible into evidence. M. Rashid Khan v. Noor M. Khan and 2 others 2001 SCR 319 (A)
  42. A substantial question of fact which goes to the root of the case and the same stands admitted by the opposite party, need not be proved. M. Rashid Khan v. Noor M. Khan 2001 SCR 319 (B)
  43. Mere relationship is no ground for discarding the evidence of a witness — Relationship not proved. Abdul Rashid and 3 others  v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (I)
  44. Related witness — Interested witness is one who falsely implicates an innocent person with ulterior motive — Related witness would be interested to secure the punishment of the actual culprit and not falsely implicate innocent person — There was hardly justification to hold that prosecution story was also falsified by the medical report. Abdul Rashid and 3 others  v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (J)
  45. Testimony of chance witness — Corroboration of — Recovery — The testimony of a chance witness should be carefully scrutinised but it does not mean that testimony should be acted upon only if the same is corroborated by independent evidence — There is also corroborative evidence in form of recoveries and medical evidence. Abdul Rashid and 3 others  v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (K)
  46. Testimony of witnesses — Duty of Court — Held: Criminal Court has to sift the grains of truth from the chaff of falsehood — Testimony of prosecution witnesses can be relied upon against some accused while rejecting against others. Abdul Rashid and 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (L) 2000 SCR 123, PLD 1978 SC (AJK) 146, 1968 SCMR 1314 ref.
  47. Ocular evidence — Motive — Proof of — If a case is primarily based on ocular evidence it is not necessary to prove motive. Abdul Rashid and 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (C) NLR 1992 Cr.L.J. 82, NLR 1993 SCJ 385, 1997 SCR 206 ref.
  48. Statements of eye witnesses — Contradiction of — Finding of Shariat Court — Held: There is no material contradiction in the statements of eye witnesses and medical evidence — It is not possible for witnesses to give the precise distance — Statements of witnesses recalled after more than three years. Abdul Rashid and 3 others  v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (D)
  49. Ocular evidence — If the ocular evidence is found trustworthy that cannot be rejected merely there was some variation between prosecution witness and medical evidence. Abdul Rashid and 3 others v. Abdul Ghaffar and 5 others 2001 SCR 240 (E)
  50. Eye witness — Relationship of — It is a well settled principle of law that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship; if the evidence of a related witness rings true, he cannot be disbelieved simply because he is related to the concerned party. Abdul Aziz  v. Muhammad Lal and 2 others 2001 SCR 402 (A)
  51. Contention that evidence recorded in one case cannot be read in other cases repelled, because the same evidence was read with the consent of the counsel of parties and the parties cannot take contradictory stand. Azad Govt. and another  v. Khurshid Ahmad  2001 SCR 415 (E)
  52. Appreciation of evidence of the parties is the sole function of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. Muhammad Mafrooz v. Shafeen Akhtar 2002 SCR 321 (D)
  53. Normally the Court does not interfere in the proceedings where the evidence has been duly appreciated by the trial Court and the appellate Court — Even if a different conclusion is possible by this Court, it cannot be ground for setting aside the judgment recorded by the trial Court and the High Court. Abdul Latif v. Safarish Ali Khan 2002 SCR 288 (A)
  54. At bail stage Courts are not expected to enter into deeper appreciation of evidence — The Courts make a tentative assessment of the relevant material, i.e., F.I.R. the recoveries made, the alleged statements of the prosecution witnesses and other evidence — The appellate Courts are not expected to evaluate in such a manner which may prejudice the case of either party. Nazir Ahmed Khan v. State and another 2002 SCR 173 (B)
  55. Question of taking evidence in this suit was agitated previously by way of revision in the High Court which was dismissed observing that issues No.1 and 2 pertained to question of limitation and cause of action are of legal nature no evidence was necessary — This order was not challenged, thus, had attained finality — Therefore, the high Court was not justified to remand the case. Muhammad Malik v. Yaqoob Javed Batalvi & another 2002 SCR 47 (A)
  56. All the evidence brought on the record is required to be considered — It is not the quantity but the quality of the evidence which has to be taken into consideration. Muhammad Iqbal v. Muhammad Arshad and another 2003 SCR 543 (A)
  57. Evidence produced in support of allegations is frivolous, unfounded and based on conjecture and surmises and totally hearsay which cannot be taken into consideration for reconstitution of bench nor any ground has been suggested to reconstitute the bench — It is sufficient in itself to be declared as it is self-contradictory to the stand taken by Dr. Muhammad Bashir Goraya. Al-Khair University & others v. Al-Khair Trust of Pakistan and others 2003 SCR 180 (B)
  58. In every criminal case particularly in murder cases the evidence of eye-witnesses is very important and there are numerous cases in which the accused were convicted on the solitary statement of one witness provided his statement rings true.M. Arshad v. M. Mushtaq and others2003SCR204 (A)
  59. In ordinary law when best evidence is not produced in the Court inference is to be drawn against the party withholding such evidence. M. Siddique v. The State and another 2003 SCR 269 (E)
  60. It stands settled by now that the evidence which is in negation of the pleas raised by the parties cannot be read into evidence — Held: High Court as well as the Courts below have committed no illegality in dismissing the suit for pre-emption. Ali Akbar Khan v. M. Afzal Khan and another 2003 SCR 224 (A)
  61. Recovery witness — Statements of recovery witness and investigating officer examined and have not found any contradiction in their statements — Order passed by the Shariat Court is against the facts on record as such not maintainable. M. Iqbal v. M. Arshad and another 2003 SCR 543 (B)
  62. Revenue record has to be appreciated in light of the facts particularly when those are admitted — Keeping in view the oral and documentary evidence the suit filed on behalf of plaintiff-respondents was after the period of 12 years as such had ripened into ownership — Mere entry in revenue record unless it does not get support from any other quarter would not support the entry cannot be accepted. Akhtar Khan and 9 others v. Sarwar Khan & 12 others 2003 SCR 128 (B)
  63. Under law a party to the suit cannot be allowed to fill up the lacunas in his evidence — The trial Court was inclined to make spot inspection in order to elucidate the costs of improvements but the petitioner himself withdrew his application — The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner for awarding costs of improvements repelled. Ghulam Murtaza v. Qalam Din 2003 SCR 172 (B)
  64. When there be two possibilities open upon evidence of the prosecution the possibility which goes in favour of the accused should be accepted — Therefore, it is yet to be ascertained whether it was possible to instigate and provoke the other accused; whether F.I.R. is a dying declaration and whether in light of injuries on the person of deceased he was capable of stating the details of the occurrence — The deceased was not the eye-witness about the allegation against the accused-respondent — There exists serious enmity between the parties. Kareem Dad v. Zaheer and another 2004 SCR 36 (B)
  65. It is an admitted principle of law that the interpretation about evidence made by the trial Court is to be respected because said Court had the occasion to notice the demure of witnesses during course of their evidence. The appraisal of evidence is that it must be read as a whole. Muhammad Razzaq & another v. Nazir Hussain & 4 others 2005 SCR 50 (A)
  66. Variation in medical evidence qua evidence of eye-witnesses — Where eye-witnesses were available and their evidence rings true after cross-examination, any variation in medical evidence would not affect evidence of eye-witnesses which has to be relied upon. Raja Sarfaraz Azam Khan & anothers  v. State and others 2005 SCR 166 (A)
  67. If any portion of statement of evidence made in examination-in-chief is not challenged in cross-examination, said portion shall be presumed to have been admitted. Muhammad Ashraf Khan & 2 others  v. Mst. Sharifa Begum & 2 others 2005 SCR 222 (A)
  68. Production of evidence by Prosecution is a step after the statement of accused is recorded — Unless the statement of accused u/s 265-D or 242 Cr. P.C is recorded, the evidence of prosecution cannot be called — If the prosecution is ordered to produce the evidence even before recording the statement of accused and charging him, it would definitely mean that the Court is predetermined to convict him and he is presumed to be guilty as against the presumption of innocence and the Court is set to follow a procedure for its own choice, not that, which is ordained by law — The question of calling of evidence of prosecution would not arise at all if after examining the accused, the Court is of the opinion that there is no ground for proceedings with the trial of the accused, similarly, if the Court on the plea of his pleading guilty convicts the accused, the evidence of the prosecution in that case also would not be required if the Court is satisfied by the admission of the accused. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (F)
  69. The law makers have very wisely incorporated the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure intending to ensure just, fair and safe trial of accused — The purpose is that the accused should know before hand after perusal of documents and statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr. P.C, the charges leveled against him and the evidence in support of these charges besides the conduct and antecedents of witnesses who are to be examined against him — A gap of at least seven days enables the Court as well to study the case and satisfy itself as to whether any case for trial is made out or not — It is real not mechanical process which is endeavoured to be achieved by law to save time of Courts and accused from being vexed and dragged in a case in which there is no ground for proceedings. Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (G)
  70. No enmity between the accused and complainant is established on record — It cannot be said that a false case has been connected against the accused-appellant. Sheraz Mahmood v. The State & another 2006 SCR 39 (B)
  71. The prosecution evidence was not enough to sustain conviction of murder — If separate pieces of evidence are taken together, same do not lead  to an inference of guilt against the respondent — On the basis of convincing circumstantial evidence order of conviction can be passed but such circumstances must be incompatible with the innocence of accused. Ajaib Sikandar v. Muhammad Javaid & another 2006 SCR 49 (C)
  72. Evidence is to be given in support of respective contentions and if one party fails to produce any evidence still the Court has powers to pass any order. Naseeb Ali v. Muhammad Nazir 2006 SCR 221 (D) NLR 1978 Lah. Civil 712 ref.
  73. In any case the findings of the Court below that Investigating Officers are unanimous on the point that the accused-respondent is innocent and sufficient evidence is not available on record to connect him with the crime — Needs no interference by this Court — Bail granted by Shariat Court upheld. Saghir Ahmed v. Zulfiqar Ahmed & another 2006 SCR 228 (C)
  74. Various opportunities were given to the petitioner to produce evidence, but he could not avail these  — Later on the petitioner moved an application that the record has been destroyed due to earthquake, while the learned counsel for petitioner wants to produce the record of Auqaf Department — On the one hand the petitioner himself says that the  record is not available on the other he seeks an adjournment for producing the same — There is nothing on the record that what sort of record the petitioner wants to produce — Neither petitioner has filed any copy of record along with written statement nor produced the same on the first date of hearing. Auqaf Department of AJ&K v. Abdul Rauf & 7 others 2007 SCR 369 (A)
  75. Appreciation of — If the evidence of a witness is not believed to the extent of certain accused persons then it should not be believed against the other accused persons — In a criminal case the Court has to sift the grain from chaff. Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat & another 2007 SCR 1 (E) 2001 SCR 240 relied.
  76. Evidence — Appreciation of — No hard and fast rule can be laid down for appreciation of evidence — While evaluating the evidence of an inimical, interested or partisan witness the Court has to be more cautious and should focus its intention on the question whether the presence of witness at the place of occurrence at the time was probable — The substratum of story narrated by witness being consistent with the other evidence on record, natural course of human event, surrounding circumstances and inherent probability of case — If the evidence of witness appears to be almost flawless and free from suspicion the Court may accept such evidence. Liaqat Hussain & another v. Ulfat Khan & another 2007 SCR 39 (B)
  77. While considering second appeal the Supreme Court shall not embark upon the fresh appreciation of evidence even if erroneous view has been drawn by the lower Court. Muhammad Latif  Khan v. Muhammad Hanif 2007 SCR 125 (E)
  78. Required standard of proof in civil cases cannot be equated with that provided for criminal cases and the Courts can adjudicate and settle a controversy of civil nature on the basis of a mere preponderance of probability but at the same time very strong evidence is required to nullify the order of a Court of law which has been passed in presence of the parties after recording their statements — Evidence in civil cases to dispute the correctness of a decree or order recorded by a Court of law must be of such a nature which can easily convince the Court to form a definite opinion that a decree or order has been manoeuvred by the parties. Muhammad Akram v. Ghulam Murtaza & 15 others 2008 SCR 184 (B)
  79. Evidence — Appreciation of — Supreme Court while considering an application for bail shall not embark upon the meticulous appreciation of evidence — Just a tentative assessment shall be made — If from the tentative assessment of evidence it can be ascertained that the petitioner has committed an offence punishable with death or transportation for life then of course concession of bail shall not be extended. Sohrab Khan & another v. State 2008 SCR 632 (A)
  80. Examination-in-chief — If a witness states something in his examination-in-chief which goes against the accused and the defence is afforded an opportunity of cross-examination — But it never challenges the same in cross-examination, the veracity of witness to that extent shall be deemed to be admitted as correct. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (I)
  81. Hearsay evidence — Could not be considered unless and until it is also stated by that person who told that he narrated the story. Ghulam Rasool Shah v. State & 10 others 2009 SCR 390 (A)
  82. Mere relationship is no ground for discarding the evidence of a prosecution witness. Muhammad Tahir Aziz v. The State & another 2009 SCR 71 (B)
  83. No conviction can be recorded on the basis of presumption — But it can be recorded only on the basis of strong and cogent evidence. Ghulam Rasool Shah v. State & others 2009 SCR 390 (E)
  84. Ordinarily an illiterate village person is not expected to tell the exact time of events — The incident is of 27th November — Normally sun sets about 5 p.m. in the end of November — The witnesses have stated that dead body was recovered around evening time — Any one of the witnesses has not stated the exact time — We should not expect from an illiterate person to tell the accurate timing of registration of F.I.R. and recovery of dead body — It appears doubtful whether F.I.R. was registered at 3 p.m. or sometime later but it does not destroy the fact that dead body was recovered from accused’s house. Rehmat Ali v. Samundar Khan and another 2009 SCR 252 (D)
  85. Police Officer is as competent witness like any other person and his testimony for the purpose of recovery has to be believed. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (E)
  86. Related witness — A relative can be a competent witness and the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded only on the basis of relationship — But it must be seen that the evidence of a related witness is confidence inspiring or it rings true while connecting it with other circumstances. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (H)
  87. Related witness — Is as competent a witness as any other — The testimony of such a witness can be believed like any other witness provided it rings true and is confidence inspiring — The witness is not inimical towards accused and has no motive to falsely implicate the accused — Then his evidence can be relied upon for convincing the accused. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (J)
  88. The motive, the fact of instigation and the enmity between the parties are independent facts which can be considered only after evaluating the evidence of prosecution. Muhammad Arif Khan v. Zahid Hussain & another 2009 SCR 484 (B)
  89. Where two interpretations of evidence are possible — Then one favourable to accused should be adapted. Ghulam Rasool Shah v. State & 10 others 2009 SCR 390 (B),  1971 SCMR 357, PLD 1995 SC 1, 2004 SCR 36 & 1994 SCR 275 rel.
  90. A Police Officer is a competent witness like any other person and his testimony cannot be discarded only on the ground of being a Police Officer. Qamar Shehzad & others v. The State 2010 SCR 113 (G)
  91. Bail — Grant of — The appellant has been charged of conspiracy as well. It cannot all be argued that he can, at the most, be charged of abatement or for that matter, each charge cannot be levelled against him and that in each case a strong evidence is required to connect the accused for having abetted for conspired the commission of offence. Agreed with the proposition of law that in cases of abatment and conspiracy the chain of facts is usually broken and the prosecution story highly suffers from ‘missing links’. Held: the prudent approach, however, has been to avoid deep indulgence of facts and the legal weight of codal provision. Ashfaque Hussain v. The State & another 2010 SCR 300 (C) 2006 SCMR 1292 & AIR 1974 SC 898 rel.
  92. In the case of ‘harraba’ of certain articles are taken away by accused, the most important piece of evidence is evidence of recovery. Qamar Shehzad & 3 others v. The State 2010 SCR 113 (E)
  93. Minor discrepancies do not discredit the evidentiary value of the recovery witnesses. Qamar Shehzad & 3 others v. The State 2010 SCR 113 (H)
  94. Objection that recovery witnesses are relatives of complainant their testimony is not reliable — No enmity was suggested to the witnesses — Nor it is suggested that they have motive to falsely implicate in appellants — Held: Testimony of related witnesses cannot be thrown away merely on the basis of relationship — Mere relationship cannot be made a ground to discard the testimony of a witness who otherwise has no motive to implicate the accused in the case. Qamar Shehzad & 3 others v. The State. 2010 SCR 113 (F)
  95. Bail — Grant of — Statement of related witnesses — The occurrence is a broad daylight and in the report under section 173 Cr. P.C., 8 persons have been nominated as witnesses of the offence — The police has also recorded their statements under section 161Cr.P.C. — They fully corroborate the prosecution version. Held: Their statements cannot be ignored merely on the ground of allegation that most of the witnesses are relatives of the complainant party or the deceased. Jahanzeb & 4 others v. State & 3 others 2011 SCR 180 (B)
  96. Bail — Grant of — Deeper appreciation of evidence at bail stage is not permissible. Held: The argument of the counsel for the accused that eight persons are attributed firing while only four crime empties have been recovered from the place of occurrence which casts doubt, cannot be considered at this stage because it will amount to deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible — The trial Court has yet to form its opinion as to what is the effect of it on the prosecution case. Jahanzeb & 4 others v. State & 3 others 2011 SCR 180 (C)
  97. Witness — Testimony of an inimical and related witness — It is settled proposition that the testimony of a related witness 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. Ghulam Rasool & another v. The State and another 2011 SCR 324 (A) 2001 SCR 402, 1984 Cr. LJ 93, PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K)146, 2008 P. Cr. L J 517 and 2009 YLR 1092 rel.
  98. Photostat copy of a document — Not admissible in evidence — The law is settled on the point that the photocopy of a document is not admissible, particularly when original of the same is not in existence. Ghulam Rasool & another v. The State and another 2011 SCR 324 (C)
  99. Corroboratory evidence — Ballistic experts report — When the case of prosecution rests upon the direct evidence, the Courts do not insist upon corroboratory evidence like ballistic expert’s report.  Ghulam Rasool & another v. The State and another 2011 SCR 324 (F) 1998 SCMR 182 and PL J 1997 SC (AJK) 226 rel.
  100. If the witness is interested, partisan or inimical towards the accused. Held: his deposition cannot be accepted unless corroborated by such un impeachable independent evidence which by itself may be sufficient to record conviction. M. Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 121 (B)
  101. Section 302, APC — appreciation of evidence — trial Court & Shariat Court reached the conclusion that the witnesses are natural, trustworthy and confidence inspiring. The defence not alleged that the witnesses are related or inimical towards the accused. Minor discrepancies have been pointed out. Held: when the witness is neutral, disinterested and independent, then its testimony is to be believed.  Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 121 (A) PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 146, ref.
  102. Section 302, APC — recovery witnesses — contention that the recovery witnesses are related to the deceased—no other allegation is levelled- Held:  the statements of witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is related to the complainant. Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others 2014 SCR 121 (F)
  103. Contention — that the prosecution witnesses are related to the deceased, i.e., Jawad Ayoub is real son of the deceased, therefore, these related witnesses cannot be relied upon for awarding the capital punishment.  Held: this is now settled that the evidence of a related witness can be relied upon if the same rings true. M. Tasleem v. The State and another 2014 SCR 893 (I) Muhammad Siddique  v. Muhammad Altaf and another (Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2008, decided on 29.3.2013) ref.
  104. It is settled law that if a portion of statement of a witness which goes against a party and the party fails to cross-examine on the point, that portion of statement of witness shall be deemed to be admitted. Mst. Amreen v. Muhammad Kabir 2014 SCR 504 (F)
  105. Appreciation of — according to celebrated principle of appreciation of evidence in civil cases, when both the parties have produced evidence, then for the controversial factual issue, the Court has to examine the whole evidence to draw the conclusion.  Muhammad Sabil Khan & another v. Saima Inshad 2014 SCR 718 (A)
  106. Murder — appreciation of evidence — minor flaws/ discrepancies — counsel for the convict pointed out minor flaws which according to his estimation, amount to falsify the prosecution story, hence, prosecution failed to prove its case beyond shadow of doubt. All objections raised on behalf of defence, the contradiction among the statements of witnesses or variation among the ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence, proof of recovery of crime weapon and the discrepancies in the statements of eye witnesses recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. etc. when judged on the touchstone of the principle of administration of criminal justice, none of these is of such importance, which legally prejudiced the legal rights of convict. Held: none of these discrepancies is fatal for the prosecution. M. Bashir v. Sain Khan  2014 SCR 821 (A)2001 SCR 240, rel.
  107. Reappraisal of — ­­reappraisal of whole prosecution evidence not necessary when the impugned judgments are well reasoned and based upon appreciation of evidence. Muhammad Bashir & another v. Sain Khan & 2 others 2014 SCR 821 (B) 1997 SCR 206, ref.
  108. According to celebrated principle of law, in presence of the documentary evidence, oral evidence cannot be preferred. M. Yousaf Haroon v. Competent Authority 2014 SCR 1180 (TT)
  109. Witnesses — related witness — the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basis of relationship — if the statements of such witnesses are confidence inspiring, truthful and befitting in the light of prosecution story. Maqsooda Begum v. Junaid & 6 others 2014 SCR 1428 (B)
  110. Cross-Examination — material disposition — un-challenged — effect of — It is celebrated principle of law that if any material deposition made in evidence remains unchallenged in cross-examination it amounts to admission. Zafar alias Mumtaz & another v. Mst. Sajjad Begum & 7 others 2014 SCR 1549 (C)
  111. Circumstantial evidence — material witness — non-production — effect of — the non-production of the material witnesses, especially when the case is one of circumstantial evidence lacking the direct evidence creates serious dent in the prosecution case. Imran Khan & another v. Sarfraz alias Pallo & 3 others 2014 SCR 1564 (A)
  112. Additional evidence — considerations — producing for — the statutory provisions on the subject are very much clear that for producing additional evidence either the application has to be moved before the court against the decree of which appeal has been filed, or the appellate Court itself felt necessary of additional evidence for deciding the case. Additional evidence cannot be allowed to produce to fill in the lacuna of the case. Raja Aurangzeb Khan v. Muhammad Saleem& others 2015 SCR 374 (A)1978 SC (AJ&K) 131, 1996 SCR 22 & PLD 2000 SC (AJK) 20  rel.
  113. Statement of witness — if a portion of the statement of a witness, which goes against a party, is not challenged in the cross-examination, it is deemed to be admitted as correct. Muhammad Sajid v. Mst. Sajida Rasheed & another 2016 SCR 1284 (A)
  114. Admission — if a particular portion of the statement of a witness goes against a party and the party fails to cross-examine the said witness on the said point, that portion of the statement deemed to be admitted as correct.Khalid Mehmood v. M. Rashed (deceased) through L.H. 2016 SCR 830 (C)
  115. Admission — If a portion of the statement of a witness goes against a party and the party fails to cross-examine the witness on that point, such statement shall be deemed to be admitted as correct. Raja Abdul Qayyum Khan v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2016 SCR 623 (C)
  116. Appreciation of — It is celebrated principle of appreciation of evidence that un-rebutted statement of a witness cannot be lightly ignored. Raja A. Qayyum Khan v. Azad Govt. & others 2016 SCR 623 (D) PLD 1968 SC 140, 1983 SCMR 849, 1998 SCR 244, 2002 SCR 288 & 2009 SCR 71 ref.
  117. Re-appraisal of — Held: Supreme Court does not go into re-appraisement of the evidence, when it has been settled that the first appellate court and the trial court have properly appraised the same and admitted it for reaching any plausible conclusion — Further held: Supreme Court does not hesitate to re-examine the evidence, where gross misreading or non-reading of evidence, any error of law and sheer disregard from principles of appraisal of evidence, which resulted into miscarriage of justice is found committed by the Courts below. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (A) 2013 PSC (Cri) 732 rel.
  118. Re-appraisal of — unseen occurrence — in-direct evidence — Held: The Court may re-examine evidence when non-reading and mis-reading of evidence and miscarriage of justice has been alleged or found. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (B)
  119. Admission — It is settled principle of law that a piece of evidence or statement of a witness which goes against the interest of a particular party and that party does not question the correctness of the assertion or deposition of the witness, it shall be deemed to have been admitted. Amina Bi & 6 others versus Ch. Muhammad Saleem & 2 others 2016 SCR 1169 (A) 1998 SCR 244 rel.
  120. It is settled principle of law that a party is bound by the statement of his or her witness. Amina Bi & 6 others versus Ch. Muhammad Saleem & 2 others 2016 SCR 1169 (C)
  121. Appreciation of — statement of a witness — whole one has to be considered — according to the celebrated principle of law, for drawing the conclusion, the whole statement of a witness has to be considered instead of picking and choosing the partial depositions. Mushtaq Ahmed v. Mohammad Ishaque & 7 others 2016 SCR 921 (A)
  122. Mobile Phone record consists of the photo copies — No one was produced before the Court to prove the genuineness of the record — Held: The Photostat copies are inadmissible in evidence — mobile phone record cannot be relied upon to connect the convict and his wife with the alleged offence. Basharat Hussain v. State & another 2016 SCR 1176 (G) 2013 PSC (Cri) 732, rel.
  123. Un-rebutted — statement not crossed examined — land acquisition matter — reference for enhancement of compensation — evidence in support of reference remained un-rebutted — reference to succeed — The respondent-land owner got his own statement recorded and tendered in evidence the copies of the award (Ex.PA) and sale-deeds (Exh. PC and PD). The copies of orders of development authority in relation to transfer of plots (Exh.PE and PF) have also been tendered. The appellant, herein, has even not bothered to cross-examine the sole witness in relation to payment of consideration money mentioned in the sale-deeds or produce the vendors or vendees of the documents. It has also not been pointed out that the sale-deeds are not relevant being regarding the land which has different potential value with reference to its location or usage. Thus, according to the celebrated principle of law, in this state of affairs, the evidence produced by the landowner has to be considered as un-rebutted. WAPDA v. Anseer Mehmood &  others 2016 SCR 1456 (A)
  124. —It is settled law that the portion of the statement of a witness which goes against the other party if not cross-examined is deemed admitted. Ali Asghar v. Mst. Asima Karim & others 2017 SCR 486 (A)
  125. —Appreciation of evidence— there  is  no  cavil  with  the proposition  that  when  a  case  is  proved  through ocular  account  the  corroborative  evidence  can be  ignored,  however,  if  the  Court  reaches  the conclusion  that  the  eyewitnesses  are  interested and inimical towards the accused then testimony of said PWs cannot be relied upon safely without corroboration  by  the  other  evidence  brought  on record,  moreover,  the  ocular  account  non-appealing  in  nature  also  requires  strong corroboration. Waseem Hussain & 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique & another  2017 SCR 428 (B)  2014 SCR 121 & PLD 1962 SC 269 rel.
  126. — It is settled law that the portion of the statement of a witness which goes against the other party if not cross-examined is deemed admitted. WAPDA v. Waheeda Akhtar & others 2017 SCR 457 (A)
  127. —Suit for cancellation of the gift-deed on the ground that the gift-deed has been obtained fraudulently while depriving the plaintiffs from the right of inheritance—donor, i.e., father of the appellants and donee, obtained copy of the jama-bandi—for execution of the gift-deed in favour of all the daughters—it was enjoined  upon the defendants to prove that donor has changed his mind before execution of the gift-deed and excluded the other legal heirs—the gift-deed got entered in the revenue record after the death of the donor. This fact clearly strengthens the view that the gift has been obtained by practicing fraud—the defendant has also not appeared as witness in support of her claim, Held: It was enjoined upon the defendant to appear and explain that the gift-deed was voluntarily executed in her favour by excluding the other legal heirs—Further held: that in order to dispel the suspicions attaching to his case, a party is duty bound to go in the witness box, otherwise an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. Mst. Chanaan Bibi v. Muhammad Shapal & others 2017 SCR 1072 (A) PLJ 1982 SC (AJK) 110 rel.
  128. —to prove document— non-appearance of  beneficiary of document—in the witness box—effect of—document not proved—The beneficiary i.e. the attorney has not himself appeared in the witness box to prove the document on the strength of which the whole transaction is made. Zahoor Ahmed & others v. Muhammad Mehrban & others 2017 SCR 1370 (C)
  129. —when a part of the statement of a witness is not challenged in cross-examination, the same would be deemed to have been admitted. Shahzed Rauf v. Shabana Yasmin 2017 SCR 1522 (G)
  130. —in civil cases—judgment has to be given on concrete evidence—not surmises and conjectures. Muhammad Latif  Khan & others v. Azad Govt.& others 2017 SCR 1570 (D)
  131. —Preponderance of— it is well settled that in civil proceedings, the Courts have to adjudicate upon the disputed matters on the preponderance of the evidence wherein no concrete evidence is available—The Courts always record the findings in favour of such party in whose favour the preponderance of evidence leans. Safina Choudhry & another v. Zafar Iqbal 2017 SCR 1620 (A)
  132. —In presence of the documentary evidence, the oral evidence cannot be given legal preference. Muhammad Ayub vs Ali Zaffar & others 2018 SCR 20 (C)
  133. —Reappraisal of—Held: that reappraisal of evidence is not the function of this Court until and unless some glaring misreading or non-reading of the record resulting in miscarriage of justice has been pointed out. Muhammad Khalid & another vs State & another 2018 SCR 356 (A)
  134. —minor discrepancies in the prosecution evidence does not thrash out the whole case of the prosecution as the minor discrepancies can be ignored lightly. Muhammad Naseem vs State & another 2018 SCR 417 (B)
  135. —Murder case—circumstantial evidence—weakest type of evidence— needs strong corroboration— however, law does not debar to convict the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and even a capital punishment can also be awarded, provided that no link in the chain should be missing and all the circumstances must lead to the guilt of the accused. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661(C)
  136. —Murder case—Circumstantial evidence— appreciation of–scope— in case of circumstantial evidence the events must form an unbroken chain and each link of the chain must fully interconnected— if any link of the chain is missing then the whole case may fall to the ground. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (F)
  137. appreciation of —murder case— witnesses remained consistent on the material points—some minor discrepancies found which can lightly be ignored—Held: minor discrepancies do not affect the case of the prosecution as a whole however, these may make mitigation to some extent which may be taken into the consideration towards the quantum of the sentence. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661  (G)
  138. —Cr.P.C—section 363 —demeanour of witness—appraisal of the evidence is the function of the trial Court as the Court is very much in a position to know the demeanour of the witness—when the statement is recorded, the trial Court is very much in a position to observe the conduct and the demeanour of a witness. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (R)
  139. —recovery—circumstantial evidence—appreciation and conviction of—the recovery is also treated to be a corroborative piece of evidence and only on the strength of sole recovery evidence; conviction cannot be recorded in the case of circumstantial evidence if the pieces of chain are not interlinked. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (V)
  140. —circumstantial evidence—appreciation of—benefit of doubt—it is celebrated principle of law that in the case of circumstantial evidence a single doubt in the prosecution story is sufficient to acquit the accused. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (W)
  141. —-Re-appraisal of — murder case—The Court normally does not go into reappraisement of evidence admitted by Courts below—but under settled law, if in a case, the Shariat Court is found to have committed an error of law or disregarded the well-known principles relating to appraisal of evidence, resulting into miscarriage of justice, then this Court is not reluctant to appraise the evidence for doing complete justice—-Held: the appraisal of evidence, especially in murder case, has always seemed to be the most difficult undertaking which in the nature of things has come to rest on the shoulders of a Judge. Shahzad & others vs Rana Qamar & others 2018 SCR 727 (A) 2016 SCR 1176 rel
  142. —Failure of prosecution to examine and important witness—effect of—Held: that it is correct that failure of the prosecution to examine an important witness, who has occasion to see the manner of commission of the offence, caste a doubt but non-examination of such witness cannot destroy the prosecution case in toto. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Habib alias Shikra 2018 SCR 775 (A)
  143. —Examination of all witnesses—It is also settled principle of law that prosecution is not bound to examine all the witnesses. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Habib alias Shikra 2018 SCR 775 (B)
  144. Contention that the area in which the occurrence has taken place, some other shops/hotels were also open but no one has been cited as witness. Held: that it is a hard fact and also a common perception that people from locality where such occurrence takes place generally hesitate to come forward as witness and in such cases they discern fear of reprisal from the accused party. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Habib alias Shikra 2018 SCR 775 (C)
  145. Forensic Science Laboratory report—The contention of the accused that the report of Forensic Science Laboratory has not been put to the accused while recording his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., Held: it does not make much difference in presence of direct ocular evidence which is supported by recovery as well as post-mortem report. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Habib alias Shikra 2018 SCR 775 (D)
  146. —Witnesses—not found Adil—their evidence—is corroborated by the recovery—effect of—Held: the witnesses have not been found Adil, however, their evidence is corroborated by the recovery of the weapon of offence as well as the post-mortem report, therefore, they have rightly ben believed for recording conviction against the accused. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Habib alias Shikra 2018 SCR 775 (E)
  147. —Witnesses—not found Adil—their evidence—conviction of death sentence to the accused—as Tazir in the circumstances of the case is not proper—As the witnesses have not been found Adiland it also appears that the accused might have been provokeddue to altercation between them and the deceased at the time of incident which by its gravity and suddenness deprived the accused of the power of self-control. Held: that death sentence awarded to the chief accused, as Tazir in the circumstances of the case is not proper and is converted into the life imprisonment. Mst. Nazir Begum vs Muhammad Habib alias Shikra 2018 SCR 775 (F)
  148. —Withholding of best evidence in a criminal case—effect of— if the best evidence in a criminal case is withheld then it can safely be presumed that had this been brought, it would not have supported the prosecution. Abdul Majeed vs Muhammad Azmat & another 2018 SCR 1206 (A) 2010 SCMR 385, 2006 SCMR 1846 & 2003 SCR 486 rel
  149. By now law is well settled that mere pleading cannot attain status of evidence until and unless a party who has signed the pleadings appear as witness for cross examination. Jameel Ahmed vs Sobia Bashir 2018 SCR 1239  (B)
  150. —pre-emption suit—contention that the exchange-deed has not been proved as two marginal witnesses have not been produced,Held:that this principle applies in the cases where the execution of the document is denied by the parties. Hanif Khan vs Muhammad Hanif Khan&others 2018 SCR 1303 (B)
  151. — improvement in the statement—when it is proved that dishonest improvement has been made by the witnesses then reliance cannot be placed on such statements. Abdul Qayyum & others v. The State & others 2019 SCR 105 (H) 2018 SCMR 772 rel
  152.                                      —Appreciation of — non-appealing ocular account—
  153. required strong corroboration—The prosecution story that a person armed with a weapon after committing a heinous offence of murder surrendered himself before an empty handed person and even not made any sort of resistance normally does not appeal to a prudent mind — under law where ocular account is not appealing in nature the strong corroboration is required. Muhammad Younas  v. The State & others 2019 SCR 149 (A) 2017 SCR 428, ref
  154. — Appreciation of  —flaws in prosecution story—nonproduction of material witness—non-appealing, non-corroboration of ocular account—substantiate the defence view that origin of occurrence shrouded in mystery— the statements of the witnesses, who allegedly reached at the spot immediately after the occurrence, the prosecution story could be further corroborated, but unfortunately have not been produced before the Court— Thus, in view of the non-appealing ocular account and non-production of the witnesses, the argument of the learned counsel for the convictappellant that the origin of occurrence is shrouded in mystery, appears to have substance—The other important corroboratory evidence available to the prosecution was recovery of crime weapon etc., but the prosecution has not proved the same by producing the evidence— The prosecution abandoned most of the recovery witnesses and the only recovery witness appeared also not supported the prosecution version. Muhammad Younas  v. The State & others 2019 SCR 149 (B)
  155.   —Statement of complaint—not fatal to prosecution’s case–Non-verification of contents of FIR—Under law it is not necessary for the complainant to verify the contents of FIR rather it is mere a practice and on such ground the convict cannot be acquitted of the charge. Muhammad Younas  v. The State & others 2019 SCR 149 (G)
  156. — Pre-emption suit— opportunity provided to the appellants to prove their claim but failed—in rebuttal, respondent proved their claim—lower Court remand the case and issued direction for appointment of commission for recording additional evidence in mosque —Held: the procedure adopted by the first appellate Court for determination of the actual price of the land is not consistent with law—it is celebrated principle of law that when a party comes with a specific claim it must stand on its own legs and has to advance some cogent evidence to prove its case. Muhammad Rashid Khan & another v. Liaquat Ali & another 2019 SCR 182 (A) 1997 SCR 57, rel
  157.  —challenge to contents of registered document—onus to prove lies who denies such contents— when the contents of a registered document are challenged then the onus of proof is shifted on the beneficiary. In the instant case, the beneficiaries, i.e. respondents, herein, produced the marginal witnesses of the gift deed in the Court and they fully supported their version, therefore, it can be said that they have proved the authenticity of the gift deed in view of the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Muhammad Aslam  v.Muhammad Farooq & others 2019 SCR 200 (C)
  158. —evidence—to prove registered gift deed—not necessary to bring on record original gift deed—certified copy is sufficient proof of execution of gift deed—Argument that the respondents completely failed to prove the genuineness of the gift-deed, even they did not bring on record the original gift-deed. Held: argument is not of worth consideration in view of the peculiar facts of the instant case as the registration of the gift deed is amply proved from the certified copy, issued by the office of the concerned Registrar, brought on record by the appellant; therefore, mere on the ground that the respondents have not brought on record the original gift-deed, the execution of the gift-deed cannot be denied. It is not case of the appellant that no gift-deed was ever executed rather he only claimed that he never got executed the gift deed and the same has been procured by way of fraud, however, he failed to substantiate this claim. Muhammad Aslam  v.Muhammad Farooq & others 2019 SCR 200 (B)
  159. —land acquisition—sale deed merely tendered in evidence without supportive statements of witnesses/land owner—cannot be considered for enhancement of compensation—neither the witnesses produced by the landowners nor the landowner, who got recorded his own statement as a witness, uttered a single word that the land in dispute and the land sold through the sale deed produced in evidence are similar in kind, nature and location wise, therefore reliance cannot be placed on such sale deed. Syed Abid Ali Gillani v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 452 (A) 2019 SCR 143 rel
  160.     —Land acquisition compensation determination/enhancement–on basis of mere tendering of sale deeds—it is settled law that mere tendering of sale deeds without supportive statements of the witnesses to the effect that location, nature, or potential value or the land sold through sale-deed exhibited and the acquired land are the same; theses sale deeds (merely tendered) are not helpful to the case of the land owners.  WAPDA v. Muhammad Taj & others 2019 SCR 460 (C)
  161. —appreciation of evidence as a whole—not a part in isolation—it is also a settled principle of law that statement of a witness cannot be taken in isolation and the statement should have been read as a whole to arrive at conclusion. WAPDA v. Muhammad Baroo & others  2019 SCR 479 (B)
  162. —the contention of the convict that the prosecution evidence consists of partisan and interested witness as all of them are Police Officers, is not the whole truth. The recovery of the liquor has been effected from Sorakhi Bridge and in absence of any evidence and suggestion on the part of the accused in the cross examination, it cannot be said that any civilian witness was also available there who has not been associated at the time of recovery of the liquor from the vehicle. However, the place of recovery is a busy road and it cannot be ignored that why the Police has not cited any passer by etc. as witness. Tahir Ali v. The State through Advocate-General 2020 SCR 391 (A)
  163.  —in presence of corroborative evidence—minor discrepancies become immaterial— the recovery witnesses during the course of trial have testified that the gun put to them in the Court was the gun which was recovered in their presence on the pointation of the convict and any discrepancy in respect of the recovery of bullet from the body of the deceased is also not of worth consideration as if a case is proved through direct reliable evidence the minor discrepancies in the corroborative pieces of evidence become immaterial which can be ignored. Iftikhar Khan v. The State & 3 others 2020 SCR 177 (H)
  164.  —appreciation of reliability upon direct evidence–discretion of the Court to determine to what extent Court believes–At first, we deem it proper to observe here that the direct evidence can include what the witnesses saw, what they heard or anything they observed with their senses; however, ultimately, the Courts, after adjudging the reliability of the direct evidence, have to determine how much the Courts want to believe it. Muhammad Idress & 2 others v. State through AdvocateGeneral & 11 others  2020 SCR 200 (C)
  165.  —rule of independent corroboration—not absolute and mandatory rule—rather rule of abundant caution —which I to be applied where standard of direct evidence not of required standard—we deem it proper to make it clear that rule of independent corroboration is not an absolute and mandatory rule to be applied in each and every case, rather it is a rule of abundant caution which is applied in the cases in which the  direct evidence is not of the standard on the basis of which a definite opinion can be formed. Muhammad Idress & 2 others v. State through AdvocateGeneral & 11 others  2020 SCR 200 (F)
  166. —related witness—mere on the ground of relationship, the testimony of the witnesses cannot be discarded when no ill-will or animosity against the accused comes on the record. Waqas Abid  v. Sajid Hussain & 3 others 2020 SCR 520 (B) 2013 SCR 439 ref
  167.  —service matter—inquiry proceedings—absence from duty—withholding of best available evidence—effect of—best evidence available was the medical certificate, which was neither produced at the time of filing of appeal before the appellate authority nor appended with memo of appeal before the Service Tribunal—Held: the appellant deliberately withheld the best available evidence, perhaps due to the reason that the same was prepared afterwards with some connivance. Fozia Muhammad Khan v. AJK Govt. & 4 others 2020 SCR 560 (C)
  168. —corroborative piece of evidence—statement of convictappellant before Civil Court, after murder of her husband—Stating her intention to get married with co-accused—the Supreme Court declared the same as strong corroborative piece of evidence along with post-mortem report and report of chemical examiner which could not be ignored. Nusrat Jan  v. The State & another 2020 SCR 630 (C)
  169.  —murder by administering poison—evidence, required for recording conviction—contention: proving of purchase, possession and administration of poison by convict-appellant was sine quo non for recording conviction—Held: Ordinarily, it was necessary to prove that the convict was in possession of the poison but to prove that she had purchased the same from store, is not necessary. It was proved through evidence that the poison was purchased by the co-accused and was duly administered by the convictappellant, who was in a position to administer the same as the deceased and the convict being spouses were living together in a house, thus, it cannot be said that the convict-appellant was not in a position to administer the poison to her husband in order to get rid of him and to fulfil her plans of marriage with her paramour. Such offences are committed secretly by the culprits without leaving any sign on the spot. Contention repelled.  Nusrat Jan  v. The State & another 2020 SCR 630 (D) 1989 MLD 1762 rel
  170. —Misreading             and        non-reading—if               alleged—then   it is imperative for a party to point out the witnesses whose statements were misread and the documents which were over looked. Mehmood-ul Hassan Khan versus Rehana & 14 others -2021 SCR 476 (B) 1993 SCR 114 rel.
  171. —Re-appraisal of—murder —re-appraisal of evidence is not the function of Supreme Court—Court does not go into the reappraisement, when it is settled that Courts below while properly appraising the evidence, admitted it for reaching any plausible conclusion—however, Supreme Court does not hesitate to reexamine evidence, where gross misreading/non-reading of evidence, any error of law or sheer disregard from principles of appraisal of evidence, resulting into miscarriage of justice is found committed by the Courts below. Rafique-ur-Rehman v.          The State 2022 SCR 199 (A) 2016 SCR 1176 & 2013 PSC (Cri) 732 ref
  172.  —Related witnesses— mere relationship per se of a witness cannot be made a ground for discarding evidence when no ill-will or animosity against the convict has been brought on record. Rafique-ur-Rehman v. The State 2022 SCR 199 (C) 2007 SCR 1 & 2015 SCR 1042 ref
  173. —The discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, if found not to be minor in nature may be a ground for disbelieving and discarding their evidence. Khursheed Hussain Shah v. State & another 2022 SCR 334 (E)
  174. –Police officials—see Khursheed Hussain Shah v. State & another 2022 SCR 334 (G)
  175. —Examination of—prosecution’s evidence is not tested on the basis of quantity but quality of evidence—it is always within the wisdom of either party to produce evidence of as many witnesses as are found necessary, to prove a certain charge. Syed Kamran Hussainshahv.            State & another 2022 SCR 365 (I) 2015 SCR 1007, 1487 & PLJ 2013 SC (AJK) 231 ref
  176. —Related witnesses— evidence of witness cannot be disbelieved or discarded merely on the basis of relationship, unless and until it is proved that the witness was inimical towards the accused. Syed Kamran Hussainshahv. State & another 2022 SCR 365 (J) 2015 SCR 142, 2013 SCR 439 & 2007 SCR 1 ref
  177. —Certified copy—status of— where original document/instrument is missing, the certified copy of the same can be relied on and presented as evidence— it is mandatory that the copy produced must be proved to be a correct copy of the original. Muhammad Zaman Tabassum v. Mehmood Ahmed Butt 2022 SCR 416 (E)  
  178. —Any portion of the statement which has not been crossexamined or challenged by the other side, shall be deemed to have been admitted. Muhammad Irfan Bashir v. Safina Kousar 2022 SCR 493 (A) 2014 SCR 1549 rel
  179. —Murder—in absence of any specific allegation of grudge or ill-will against the witnesses, the evidence cannot be discarded mere on the ground of relationship. Liaquat Jan & another v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2022 SCR 534 (A)
  180.  —Murder—the ocular testimony cannot be brushed away only on the basis of relationship, if otherwise found confidence-inspiring and trustworthy—mere relationship cannot be made basis to discard the testimony of a witness, who otherwise has no motive to falsely implicate the accused. Liaquat Jan & another v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2022 SCR 534 (B) 2010 SCR 113 ref
  181.  —Murder—eye-witnesses supported the prosecution version–defence failed to point out any major contradiction— objection is that the witnesses are related— held: it is broad daylight occurrence witnessed by eye-witnesses—it would unnatural to falsely or wrongly implicate an innocent person as accused and let the real culprit go away. Liaquat Jan & another v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2022 SCR 534 (C) 2001 SCR 240 ref
  182. —Post mortem report—appreciation of— murder—minor discrepancies—effect of—argument regarding contradiction in distance between the convict and deceased is not available to convict on the ground that post-mortem report suggests that the distance has been assessed from the scattering of pellets, which may vary due to the range of the weapon—such like minor discrepancy is not fatal for the prosecution story, which is  supported by the ocular account and other corroborative evidence. Liaquat Jan & another v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2022 SCR 534 (E)
  183. —Appreciation of— murder— post mortem report— argument that there is mark contradiction in the prosecution version that the accused was firing from the rooftop of his house and how could the deceased receive straight fire, as is mentioned in the medical report–observed: mostly, in uneven land, surfaces of the rural areas in AJ&K the houses are not situated at equal altitude and a fire made from the rooftop may hit a target positioned at the same level, while standing at some higher altitude— the prosecution has otherwise proved the case  and such like minute discrepancies are of no use for the convict. Liaquat Jan & another v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2022 SCR 534 (F)
  184. — Reappraisal of— murder—reappraisal of evidence is not a function of Supreme Court— once it is settled that there has been proper appraisal of evidence, Supreme Court does not even draw the conclusion different from that drawn by 1st appellate Court and the trial Court, however, Supreme Court does examine the evidence to see whether there has been any gross misreading or non-reading of evidence which may have resulted into miscarriage of justice. Moeen Nasim v. The state & another  2022 SCR 855 (B)
  185. — admissibility of document — objection as to nonexhibiting of document — document was exhibited and entered as Ex-PA in statement of witness but exhibit was not marked on the document — effect of — Held: Marking the exhibition is in-fact a ministerial or administrative duty of the Court, so non-marking of a document is a human mistake/error which cannot defeat the merits or legal standing of a case. Objection repelled. Zaffar Younas & others v. Noor Ahmed Khan & others 2023 SCR 491 (F)
  186. — burden to prove in civil matters — shifting of burden of proof, as per stance of parties — negative stance and affirmative stance — distinction — Held: In civil matters the burden of proof shifts from one party to another in view of the stance of the parties. The general principle behind ‘burden of proof’ is that it lies upon the person or party which substantially asserts itself in the affirmative of an issue. In applying this rule, regard must be given to substance and not grammatical form. The wisdom behind the adoption of this rule of convenience in practice is not because the negative is unprovable but because the negative does not admit direct and simple proof which the affirmative is capable of. Zaffar Younas & others v. Noor Ahmed Khan & others 2023 SCR 491 (A)
  187. — burden to prove shifts to other party, once a party brings on record evidence in support of his assertion —The onus of proof in civil cases does not always remain fixed. The moment some evidence has been brought on record by one party, the onus would shift to the other side. Unless the other side counters and rebuts the evidence of the first party, it would fail and the burden of the first party would stand discharged. Zaffar Younas & others v. Noor Ahmed Khan & others 2023 SCR 491 (C)
  188. — burden to prove execution of document lies on beneficiary of document — It is also a celebrated principle of law that onus to prove the execution of document is always on the person, who is beneficiary of such document. Zaffar Younas & others v. Noor Ahmed Khan & others 2023 SCR 491 (D) PLJ 2005 1148; PLD 1997 Lahore 633; 1992 MLD Karachi 2515. Rel.
  189. — mere on the ground of relationship the evidence of witnesses cannot be disbelieved or discarded. Muhammad Pervaiz & others v. State & others 2023 SCR 563 (C) 2015 SCR 1042 & 2007 SCR 1 ref.
  190.  — minor contradictions — once genesis of occurrence proved, minor discrepancies not to discredit the entire prosecution — Held: As there is overwhelming evidence on record to prove that the incident had taken place and once the genesis of the occurrence is proved, the contradictions which are minor in nature and do not in any way prejudice the case, would not be sufficient to dispel the entire prosecution case. Minor contradictions are pretty much natural to be expected in the human statements. The discrepancies in the evidence of the eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, maybe a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. The learned counsel for the convictappellant has endeavored hard to highlight certain discrepancies among the testimony of the witnesses, but in our considered opinion, these discrepancies are absolutely minor in nature and do not discredit the cumulative evidence. Habib Hussain Shah v. State & others 2023 SCR 442 (F)
  191. — reappraisal of evidence by Supreme Court is not inflexible rule — Exceptions to the rule laid down — Although, it is settled practice of law that Supreme Court does not go into reappraisement of the evidence, when it has been settled that the first appellate court and the trial court have properly appraised the same and admitted it for reaching at any plausible conclusion. However, this is not a hard and fast rule and this court does not hesitate to reexamine the evidence, where gross misreading or non-reading of evidence, any error of law and sheer disregard of principles of appraisal of evidence, which resulted into miscarriage of justice, is found to be committed by the Courts below. Muhammad Shahbaz v. Nasarullah Khan & others2023 SCR 384 (D) 2019 YLR 2508. Rel.
  192. — withholding of evidence — non-production of prosecution witness — grandmother of eye witnesses was not produced as witness — effect: weather adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution? Held: It has also been argued by the convict-appellant that the maternal grandmother of both eyewitnesses has not been cited as a witness, so the Court should draw an adverse inference that if the evidence of the referred witness was recorded that would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. So far as this argument is concerned, it may be observed here that firstly, she was neither the eye-witness of the occurrence nor she was alleged to be present at the place of occurrence even after incident. Even otherwise, the defence has failed to furnish any plausible reason for the damage caused to the convict-appellant for not producing the said witness which could satisfy the Court. Habib Hussain Shah v. State & others 2023 SCR 442 (E)
  193. — witness of arrest of accused — location of arrest disputed by accused — application by accused to place CCTV footage of camera installed at place of arrest as alleged by accused to confront prosecution witness — crucial to extract details of arrest by cross-examination and determine actual place of arrest and confront prosecution witness of making arrest of accused — the appellant has claimed in the application that the appellant was arrested near a Petrol Pump at another location, but the arrest and other proceedings have been shown as made at another place. The appellant wanted to place on record a CCTV footage of the camera fixed at the Petrol station, to confront the statement of police witness No.1. The learned trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the accused-appellant would be given an opportunity to present the evidence at the time of defense evidence. It may be observed here that, in the ongoing trial, it was the prosecution witnesses who played a crucial role in apprehending the accused, thereby making them the most pertinent individuals when it comes to addressing inquiries related to the specific location of the arrest during the cross examination phase. These witnesses, who were present at the scene and actively involved in the arrest, possess first-hand knowledge and direct insight into the circumstances surrounding the event. Their presence during the arrest places them in a unique position to provide detailed information regarding the chronological order of events leading up to the accused’s apprehension, the specific actions taken by the arresting authorities, any statements or reactions made by the accused at the time, as well as any significant observations related to the physical environment or the presence of other individuals nearby. As such, the crossexamination will likely focus on extracting precise and comprehensive details from these prosecution witnesses to establish a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the accused’s arrest and to evaluate the legality and appropriateness of the entire procedure. By questioning these witnesses about the place of arrest, the defense aims to ascertain any potential discrepancies, inconsistencies, or irregularities that may have occurred during the process, with the ultimate goal of challenging the validity of the prosecution’s case. Hussain Nazi v. The State & another 2023 SCR 356 (C)
  194. — cross-examination of prosecution’s witness of making arrest of accused — place of arrest of accused disputed by accused— rejection of application to place CCTV footage of place of arrest, to confront statement of prosecution’s witness — rejection of application declared as hampering of pursuit of justice and undermine the integrity of trial proceedings by the Supreme Court— Held: It is crucial to highlight that the implications of such a decision can have a far reaching impact on the outcome of the trial. The primary issue in hand pertains to the failure to confront a specific witness during the proceeding of crossexamination and seeking an explanation for any contradictions that might have emerged from the testimony. This procedural oversight becomes a significant cause for concern, as it essentially hampers the pursuit of justice and undermines the integrity of the trial proceedings. Hussain Nazi v. The State & another 2023 SCR 356 (D)
  195. — cross-examination — importance of — consequences of failure of cross-examination — Cross-examination serves as a fundamental mechanism within the legal system, allowing the opposing party to scrutinize and challenge the testimonies provided by the prosecution witnesses. It provides an opportunity to question the credibility, accuracy, and consistency of the statements of prosecution’s witnesses. However, in this particular instance, the failure to confront the witness and seek an explanation during cross-examination severely limits the ability to address potential contradictions or inconsistencies in their testimony. The consequence of this oversight is particularly troubling. If a witness is not appropriately confronted and questioned during cross-examination, any contradictions or discrepancies in their testimony cannot be taken into consideration later on. This restriction significantly hampers the ability to fully examine the veracity of the witness’s statements, potentially allowing unreliable or inaccurate information to go unchallenged. Hussain Nazi v. The State & another 2023 SCR 356 (E)
  196. — competence of — police witness — mere fact that prosecution witnesses belong to Police force by itself cannot be considered as valid reason to discard their statements — the police witnesses are competent witnesses like any other independent witness and their testimonies cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they are police officials — Rafaqat Hussain versus The State 2023 SCR 643 (B)
  197. — minor discrepancies — criminal offence — minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses do not affect the prosecution story as a whole — once the genesis of the occurrence is proved, the discrepancies which are minor in nature, would not sufficient to dispel the entire prosecution case. Aftab Ali versus The State & another 2023 SCR 1069 (A)
  198.  — murder case — contention on behalf of convict that despite availability of impartial witnesses, related witnesses have been produced which casts a serious doubt in the prosecution story — held: in presence of other tangible evidence, the prosecution case on this score cannot be disbelieved especially when the manner of occurrence and the presence of witnesses on the place of occurrence has not been challenged by the defence, rather the trend of crossexamination leads to the conclusion that the manner of occurrence as well as presence of witnesses on the spot has been admitted. Imran & others vs The State & others 2024 SCR 155 (A)
  199. —murder case — conviction of — appreciation of evidence — impartial witnesses — non production — effect of — admittedly occurrence took place in the bazar where some shops were opened but none else from shopkeepers cited as witness — observed that the people from locality where such occurrence takes place, generally hesitate to come forward as witness as they discern fear of reprisal from the accused — held: the prosecution examined all witnesses cited in the calendar who supported the prosecution story — neither any dent nor any reasonable doubt created that witnesses were not present on the spot — the evidence rightly believed by Court below for conviction. Imran & others vs The State & others 2024 SCR 155 (B)
  200. —non-production of independent witness of recovery— police official made and produced before Court as recovery witness- –as public remains reluctant to become witness of recovery—police officials are reliable witness of recovery— held: it is essential to recognize the reluctance of the public to act as a witness in cases of this nature. However, it is firmly established that Police officials can serve as reliable witnesses and their testimonies hold weight, if unimpaired under lengthy cross examination. Arshad Mehmood vs The State 2024 SCR 338 (B) Mohammad Naeem vs. The State, 1992 SCMR 1617; Khurshid Hussain Shah v. State and another, 2022 SCR 334; Gul Zaman and another v. The State, 2014 P.Cr.LJ 662; Nasrullah v. the State, 2011 P.Cr.LJ 277 rel.
error: Content is protected !!