Related witnesses

No doubt, the evidence of closely related witnesses cannot be discarded on the mere ground of their relation with the victim but if, it is found that testimony of the related witnesses does not find corroboration from attending circumstances of the event or the conduct and demeanor demonstrated by them at the time of occurrence or just thereafter, is such that is not expected from a prudent person, then under such circumstances the evidence furnished by related witnesses is hard to accept.

Accused was charged for making firing upon complainant, his brother and son, however son of complainant was hit and died at the spot

In the present case, no doubt, eye-witnesses were close relatives of the deceased but they had remained firm and straightforward in their testimony, therefore, on the sole ground of their close association with the deceased, their testimony could not be discarded

Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of any doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, mutalahimah, rash or negligent act endanger to human life or the personal safety of other, common intention, act of terrorism

Appreciation of evidence

Related witnesses

Reliance

Prosecution case was that an encounter took place between police and accused persons after the accused persons were escaping after committing the murder of son of complainant due to refusal of payment of extortion money, whereas a Police Constable also died and a Head Constable along with a passerby sustained firearm injury

Allegedly, eye-witnesses were related to the deceased

Eye-witnesses being related to the deceased in the case of extortion and murder was of little, if any, assistance to the accused

Despite the close relationship of the complainant with deceased and with the other eye-witnesses, the evidence of eye-witnesses after careful reconsideration was found trustworthy

Mere relationship with the deceased was no ground to discard otherwise trustworthy evidence provided that there was no ill will or enmity between the witnesses and the accused, which was not present in the present case

Moreover, the deceased was murdered in the presence of his own son

Mere relationship is not sufficient to bring a witness within meaning of category of interested witness but it would always be the motive of such an event where one agreed to involve an innocent person at cost of the real culprit

However in the present case it was extremely unlikely for the complainant to set free the real culprit and nominate innocent persons instead and that too without any justifiable rhyme or reason

Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting knife blows

Minor quarrel of the deceased with the accused was stated to be the motive behind the occurrence

Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by the brothers and cousins of the deceased

Relationship of eye-witnesses with the complainant party though did not cast aspersions upon their veracity in case their statements were proven natural and no animosity or personal interest of eye-witnesses was involved

However, such witnesses should not be inimical and they should not have their own axe to grind against the opposite party

As per peculiar circumstances of the case, all the eye-witnesses were not only extremely inimical but they had to save their own skins as they were nominated accused in the same incident as per version of the accused party

Keeping in mind that the incident took place in thickly populated area and presence of independent, impartial witnesses mainly neighbors had been admitted by the prosecution witnesses so much so as per statement of Official Witness, few people present at the place of the incident wanted to record their statements, which statements were not recorded and in very mechanical manner individuals, who were extremely hostile and volatile against each other, were made witnesses and the impartial and independent account of actual incident, regarding true facts viz-a-vie which party was actual culprit and aggressor was missing

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

If it is found that the testimony of the related witness got no corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by them at the time of occurrence or just thereafter, which can not be expected from a prudent person, then the evidence furnished by related witnesses can be easily discarded.

Five eye-witnesses recorded their statements and identified the accused as he was previously known to them, therefore there was no question of misidentification

So the testimony of said witnesses, though they were relatives of deceased, could not be discarded on the basis of mere relationship

Mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased could not be a ground to discard such witnesses unless previous enmity or ill-will was established on record to falsely implicate the accused in the case

Circumstances established that the prosecution successfully brought home the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused while armed with pistols and iron rods caused injuries to three persons, out of which one person died

Statement of a witness related to deceased should be corroborated rather the statement of a worst enemy could be relied upon, if it inspired confidence and intrinsic worth of the statement was not shaken

Mere relationship of the witnesses with the deceased was not a ground for discarding their statements when otherwise such statements were confidence inspiring and found corroboration from the independent witnesses

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt

Accused were acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentences recorded by the Trial Court.

Mere relationship of a witness with the deceased cannot oust him from the Court so as to be rendered unworthy of credence

For holding an eye-witness as interested, the defence has to demonstrate that he is inimically placed against the accused, and that there is every likelihood of false implication for satisfying pre-existing grudge or vengeance.

Evidence of related witness could not be discarded unless there was some ill will or enmity between the eye-witnesses and the accused.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, shajjah-i-khafifah, ghayr-jaifah-mudihah, badiah, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Related witnesses

Phenomenon of substitution

Prosecution case was that the accused party while armed with deadly weapons assaulted on complainant party, due to which son of complainant died while complainant and his three companions received injuries on their body parts

Father who was an eye-witness would not let the murderer of his son go scot free by substituting him with an innocent person/accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused, however, motive had not been proved, therefore the death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife and daughter by plying the dagger on the basis of suspicion that deceased had illicit relation with someone and the daughter was born out of said relation

Admittedly, witnesses appeared to be interested as they all related to each other in one way or the other

No evidence had come on record that there was any open enmity or animus between the prosecution witnesses and the accused

All the three eye-witnesses were also relatives of the accused as such their evidence seemed to be reliable and corroborated by other independent evidence

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Treating as an interested version unless otherwise established, it could not be concluded that a person who was closely related to the deceased would make a statement for falsely implicating any person so as to permit the real person to escape from the clutches of law

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, however, motive was not proved, thus death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life.

Testimony of the eye-witnesses could not be discarded because of their relationship inter se as well as with the deceased.

Relationship of witnesses was not sufficient to question the credibility of their evidence.

Medico Legal Certificate transpired that the injuries on the person of complainant were 4/5 days old, which totally belied the ocular account

Medical evidence was a corroborative/supportive piece of evidence and by itself could not identify the accused, but it carried weight

Eye-witness stated that the firing was made from the distance of two feet while as per Medical Legal Certificate there was burning around the wound, meaning thereby that the fire was made from 4/5 feet

Bloodstained clothes and earth were received in the Forensic Laboratory after 17 days of the occurrence

Firing was allegedly made by nine persons while the prosecution secured only 4 empties from the spot and the same were not even sent to the Arms Expert

Witnesses were closely related to the complainant

Nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused persons

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

No doubt the evidence of the related witnesses could not be discarded on the ground of its being related to the victim, however, if it was found that the testimony of the related witness got no corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by them at the time of occurrence or just thereafter could not be expected from a prudent person, then under such circumstances the evidence furnished by related witnesses could be easily discarded.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, giving false information to screen defenders, possession of unlicensed arms

Appreciation of evidence

Related witnesses

Scope

Accused was charged for committing murder of his father and also causing injury to the complainant by firing

Testimony of eye-witness could not be discarded on the reason that he was closely related to the deceased and injured, because he was also similarly related to the accused

Nothing was available on record which would transpire that the eye-witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the accused in the case

Established natural presence of the eye-witnesses on the spot at the relevant time could not be brushed aside on the ground of mere close relationship with the deceased

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death, common intention

Appreciation of evidence

Related witnesses

Scope

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant while looting the complainant party, accused was apprehended at the spot

Defence laid stress on the fact that the alleged eye-witnesses and the mashir were close relatives of the complainant as well as the deceased

Out of the three alleged eye-witnesses, two were independent witnesses and they were not related to the complainant or the deceased

So far as complainant was concerned, certainly he was brother of the deceased but his evidence was confidence inspiring and the defence side could not succeed in shaking / shattering his evidence

Evidence of the eye-witnesses seemed to be unimpeachable and consistent with each other

Ocular account of the incident was fully supported by medical evidence as well as circumstantial evidence, particularly, the recovery of the crime weapon from the possession of accused and the positive report of the Ballistic Expert

No reason existed for discarding the evidence of the complainant/eye-witness merely on the ground that he was related to the deceased

Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against accused beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased alone would not support the plea of the accused that their testimonies were not worth believing.

Relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased alone was not enough to discard the testimony of the complainant and his witnesses

Accused, in the matters of capital punishments, would not stand absolved by making a mere allegation of dispute/enmity but would be required to bring on record that there had been such a dispute/enmity which could be believed to have motivated the natural witnesses in involving the innocent at the cost of the escape of "real culprits"

Where the natural witnesses were in blood-relations then normally the possibility of substitution became rare.

Record showed that the eye-witnesses being parents of the deceased had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the offence substituting him, letting off the real culprits

No such material was available on record, which would indicate substitution of the accused in the case with the real culprit

Substitution is a phenomenon of a rare occurrence because even the interested witnesses would not normally let off real culprits for the murder of their relations by involving innocent persons

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, however, the sentence of death awarded to the accused under S. 302(b), P.P.C. was altered to imprisonment for life, in circumstances.

Mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased and inter-se is not sufficient to discredit their testimony.

Evidence of related witnesses could not be discarded unless there existed some ill will or enmity between the eye-witnesses and the accused.

Mere relationship between witnesses and deceased was not enough to discard their evidence unless they had motive to falsely implicate the accused

Each case was to be decided keeping in view its peculiar facts.

Mere relationship of the witnesses with each other could not be a ground to impeach their credibility in absence of any animus on their part against accused

Mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased could not be made basis of brushing aside their testimony, which was otherwise convincing in nature.

Mere relationship itself is no ground to discard the testimony of a witness, however, the relationship could not be ignored, if there is a motive to falsely book an accused.

Testimony of closely related witnesses was required to be scrutinized with great care and caution, especially when the witness was interested and inimical and was, likely to falsely implicate the accused.

Evidence of witnesses related inter se could not be disbelieved unless biased, enmity etc was alleged and proved against them.

If the defence had not shown that related witnesses had any personal enmity towards the accused or any reason to falsely implicate any of the accused, such relationship was not relevant in assessing the reliability of their evidence.

Record showed that evidence of all the eye-witnesses was trustworthy, tangible, convincing and confidence inspiring and corroborated with all types of circumstantial evidence

No reason was available to implicate the present accused-appellant by letting of the real culprits in a case wherein one innocent person had lost his life

Complainant was brother-in-law of deceased while other witness was also brother-in-law of complainant and another witness was son of deceased

Said fact alone was not sufficient to discard their evidence

Propriety of safe administration of justice demanded care and caution while examining the evidence brought on record coupled with other corroborative evidence.

Evidence of complainant showed that he had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the murder of his brother substituting him and letting off the real culprit

No evidence was available on record to indicate the substitution of accused with real culprit

Substitution was a phenomenon of a rare occurrence because even interested witnesses would not normally allow real culprit for the murder of their dear and let-off by involving any innocent person

Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea raised by accused persons was that prosecution witnesses were related to deceased who were planted by complainant party and deceased was a notorious person

Validity

Evidence of related witnesses who were not found inimical and were confidence inspiring did not require any corroboration

Complainant was real uncle of deceased and he could not substitute accused persons for the real culprits who had committed murder of his nephew, as substitution was a rare phenomenon

Neither police could be allowed to murder innocent people nor general public could be left at the mercy of greedy and cruel police officials in the garb of their official duties

Even if deceased was a notorious criminal and he was wanted in many criminal cases or criminal cases were pending against him, still it was open to no one to take his life in the manner and fashion it had been taken by accused police officials

Trial Court after proper appraisal of evidence available on record had rightly awarded conviction and sentence to accused persons, who failed to point out any mala fide on the part of complainant party for their false implication

Accused persons could not point out any material contradiction and discrepancy which could benefit defence version and there was no error of law, misreading or non-reading of evidence in judgment passed by Trial Court calling for interference

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused committed trespass into the house of complainant with preparation and armed with a pistol and caused firearm injury to victim lady making her permanently disabled

Validity

Accused disappeared from scene after commission of alleged offence and remained fugitive from law for a considerable time

Accused surrendered himself before Court when his brother was granted pre-arrest bail by High Court on the ground that no overt act was attributed to him

Incident occurred inside the house of complainant so family members were the witnesses of incident and their testimony could not be discarded merely on the ground of their relationship with complainant who was otherwise trustworthy

Accused could not claim concession of bail as a matter of right, even if alleged offence did not fall within prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Applicant failed to establish case of further inquiry as envisaged in S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail was declined in circumstances.

Mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with deceased cannot render their evidence unreliable unless it is established that they had motive to implicate accused falsely.

Relationship of eye-witnesses inter se and with the deceased is not sufficient to discard their evidence or to term. them as interested witnesses, unless previous enmity between the parties is proved on record.