Eye-witnesses

  1. In every criminal case particularly in murder cases the evidence of eye-witnesses is of vital importance. M. Arshad & another v. M. Mushtaq and 5 others 2003 SCR 192 (C)
  2. Non-production — Effect of — An important eye-witness, Rehmat Khan was not produced by the prosecution, which means that the prosecution witness will not support the version of the prosecution. M. YOUSAF v. TARIQ MEHMOOD & ANOTHER, 2008 SCR 1 (C)
  3. Sole eye-witness — No doubt where the testimony of a sole eye-witness inspires confidence, his character is beyond any doubt, his evidence is corroborated by other strong and cogent evidence then of course convict can be awarded on the statement of sole eye-witness. Niaz Ahmed v.  The State & 2 others 2008 SCR 326 (E)
  4. Where sole eye-witness is also a chance witness, closely related to deceased, his enmity with the accused and his character is also not above board then capital punishment or life imprisonment could not be awarded. Niaz Ahmed v. The State & 2 others 2008 SCR 326 (F) PLJ 1973 SC 150, PLJ 1975 Cr.C. 86 and 2002 MLD 872 rel.
  5. Delay in recording statements of eye-witnesses — Effect of — Statements of eye-witnesses were recorded after ten days — They were living in the same area and were associated with the process of investigation from the very first day — Prosecution has failed to explain the delay — Their evidence is doubtful and cannot be relied upon. Arshad Mahmood v. Raja Muhammad Asghar and another 2008 SCR 345 (O)  PLD 1965 W.P. Karachi 767 rel.
  6. One witness — shown in the calendar of witnesses as eyewitness but he stated in his statement that he has not seen the occurrence — credibility of — Held: that the witness has got recorded his statement in a natural manner. Although, he has not seen the occurrence however, he supported the prosecution version regarding the place, time, manner of occurrence and presence of the parties at the relevant time. Said Akbar & another v. Sardar Ghulam Hussain 2015 SCR 1487 (E)
error: Content is protected !!