Related witness

No doubt mere relationship of a witness could not be a ground to discard his evidence, however, testimony of such witness was to be scrutinized with great care and caution, and especially the same should not be relied upon, without corroboration, for sustaining conviction on a capital charge.

Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded only on the ground that he is a related witness, but it is only a rule of prudence

Rule of caution is that the evidence of related witness is scrutinized with some extra caution

Once the Court is satisfied that the witness was present at the scene of occurrence and his evidence inspires confidence, the same cannot be discarded on the sole ground of relationship with the deceased or chance witness.

No doubt the evidence of a related witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground of his relationship with the complainant party, but his evidence must be scrutinized with a greater degree of circumspection.

Parties were in blood relationship and the complainant being real father of the deceased was not expected to let off the real culprit and falsely implicate the accused for the murder of his sons, especially when there was no blood feud between them

Substitution or false implication became a rare phenomenon, in the circumstances

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond the shadow of any doubt

Appeal against conviction being bereft of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

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

Mere relationship of the eye-witness with the deceased alone is not enough to discard the testimony of the said witness.

Did not appeal to reason, logic or commonsense that a real brother who was an eye-witness would let the murderer of his real brother go free by substituting him with an innocent person

Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

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

Mere fact that a witness was closely related to the accused or deceased or he was not related to either party, was not a sole criterion to judge his independence or to accept or reject his testimony, rather the true test was whether the evidence of a witness was probable and consistent with the circumstances of the case or not.

Mere relationship of a witness with deceased was no ground to discard his testimony if he otherwise appeared to be truthful and his presence at the venue of occurrence was probable

Mere relationship of witness would not dub him as interested witness because interested witness was one who had a motive to falsely implicate the accused, was biased, partisan or inimical towards the accused

Related witness, particularly in murder cases, might be found more reliable because on account of his relationship with the deceased he would not let go the real culprit or substitute the real person

Evidence of related witness, who was not found inimical and was confidence inspiring, would hardly need any corroboration.

Eye-witnesses being the real brother and the paternal cousin of the deceased respectively had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in the commission of the offence by substituting him and letting off the real culprits, more so when the accused was also related to the witnesses

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

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond the shadow of any doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, death sentence of the accused was altered to imprisonment for life

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Evidence of related witness could not be discarded simply on the basis of being relatedalone unless some enmity, ill will or reason to falsely implicate the accused had come on record.

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

Eye-witness account was fully supported by medical evidence as well as circumstantial evidence, particularly, the recovery of the crime weapon from the possession of accused/appellant and the positive report of the ballistic expert

Evidence of the eye-witnesses could not be ignored merely on the ground that they were related to the deceased

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mere relationship of witnesses with the complainant is not sufficient to discredit their testimony if otherwise such witnesses are found to be the witnesses of truth.

Mere relationship was no ground to disbelieve the truthful testimony of related witness.

Accused along with others were alleged to have attacked upon the deceased, who took shelter in a shop but the accused persons being armed with pistols entered into the shop and made firing upon the deceased

First Information Report was lodged with a delay of about 23 hours without any plausible reason

Accused was nominated in the FIR but he was not assigned any role

Accused was later on assigned the role of holding the deceased but no reliance could be placed upon such an improved statement

No plausible explanation was furnished as to why the shopkeeper or the person who took the deceased to the hospital was not examined

Non-production of most natural and material witnesses strongly led to an inference that they would not have supported the prosecution case

Prosecution witnesses were closely related to the deceased and were chance witnesses

Prosecution case was highly doubtful and was not proved beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Mere relation of witness with the deceased was no ground to discard his/her testimony, if his evidence was found independent and truthful, therefore, his testimony without looking for any other corroborative evidence, would alone be sufficient to establish the charge

Evidence of related witness who was not found inimical and were confidence inspiring would hardly need any corroboration.

If it was found that the testimony of a related witness got no corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or his conduct shown at the time of occurrence or just thereafter was such which could not be expected by a prudent person, in such circumstance the evidence furnished by a related witness could easily be discarded.

Mere relationship of witness with the deceased was no ground to discard the ocular account.

Mere relationship is no ground to discard/disbelieve the statement of natural witness.

No prohibition exists in the law that the statement of related witness cannot be considered.

Statement of a witness could not be disbelieved solely on the plea that he was related to the deceased.

Mere relationship of the prosecution witness with the deceased and inter-se was not sufficient to discredit his testimony.

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

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

Mere relationship did not hold a witness interested to a party.

Witnesses being relatives normally would like to bring truth before the court.

Police witness or related witness is as good as any other witness provided that no ill will, enmity, mala fide or personal interest is proven against him.

Mere relationship of the eye-witness with the deceased alone was not enough to discard his/her testimony or that of the complainant and his witness.

Related witnesses some time, particularly in murder cases, might be more reliable, because they, on account of their relationship with the deceased, would not let go the real culprit or substitute an innocent person for him.

Simply because a witness is related does not make him an interested witness and unreliable unless he has reason to falsely implicate the accused or he is biased, partisan or inimical to the accused.

Simply because a witness was related did not make him an interested witness and unreliable, unless he had reason to falsely implicate the accused or he was biased, partisan or inimical to the accused.

Statements of related witnesses could not be discarded merely because they were closely related to the deceased.

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 as such, which could not be expected from a prudent person, then under such circumstances, the evidence furnished by related witnesses could be easily discarded.

Fact that a witness is relative of the deceased is not per se enough to discredit the witness unless it is established that the witness is inimical towards the accused and if it is found that his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be denied then his evidence cannot be rejected outrightly, merely because such witness belongs to one party or the other involved in a factional dispute, if otherwise such a witness has established his veracity.

Where the testimony of a relative witness is corroborated through circumstantial evidence or other pieces of evidence then his relationship or friendship with the deceased will not suffice to discredit him particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused.

Where the testimony of a relative is corroborated through circumstantial evidence or other pieces of evidence, then his relationship or friendship with the deceased will not suffice to discredit him particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused.

Fact that a witness is relative of the deceased is not per se enough to discredit the witness unless it is established that the witness is inimical towards the accused and if it is found that his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be denied then his evidence cannot be rejected outrightly, merely because such witness belongs to one party or the other involved in a factional dispute, if otherwise such a witness has established his veracity.

Related witness is as much competent witness, as any other, provided he is not inimical towards accused and has no motive to implicate the accused in a false case.

Mere close relationship of the witnesses with deceased could not be a reason to discard their testimony if otherwise the same was trust worthy, confidence inspiring and appealing to reason and corroborated by independent circumstances.

When testimony of the related witnesses got no corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by them at the time of occurrence or just thereafter which could not be expected from a prudent person, then the evidence furnished by related witnesses could be discarded.

Prosecution case was that the accused made firing upon the brother and cousin of complainant, resultantly, brother of complainant received bullet injuries, who died on the spot while his cousin survived

All the three eye-witnesses produced in support of charge were closely related to the deceased

Said witnesses, who were cousins and brother of the deceased, instead of shifting the deceased to the hospital kept waiting for complainant, which appeared to be unnatural

Said witnesses did not accompany the dead body to the hospital

If they were present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence, they must have taken the deceased either to the hospital or to Levies Station, which was not done

Complainant was not eye-witness of the alleged occurrence but the FIR was lodged by him

If it was presumed that eye-witnesses were present at the place of occurrence, then they would have lodged the report promptly, but they did not do so

Such conduct of eye-witnesses showed that they were not present at the place of occurrence and failed to justify their presence at the place of occurrence

No resistance or hue and cry for help was made by the said witnesses, despite the fact that the alleged occurrence took place near the house of person

Mode and manner of the occurrence, advanced by the prosecution witnesses, was not appealable to the prudent mind

Accused/appellant has no motive to fire at the deceased

Alleged eye-witnesses escaped unhurt and did not even receive a scratch in the incident, despite being empty handed and were totally at the mercy of the appellant

Accused/appellant selected to kill the brother of the complainant with whom they had no direct motive

Inference, in circumstances, could be that the incident did not take place in the way and manner, as it was alleged

Complainant did not mention the names of the said witnesses in his report and did not state a single word in his report as well as in his statement that they were present at the time of alleged occurrence

According to the eye-witnesses the accused/appellant made firing near the houses

No impartial evidence had come from the neighbourhood to corroborate the prosecution case, which, of course, could be available due to gunshots

Non-production of two persons, one who informed the complainant about the incident and the other who took the deceased to the hospital were not produced as witnesses which made the prosecution case doubtful under Art. 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.

Evidence of a related witness could not be discarded on the ground of his being related to the victim but if it was found that the testimony of a related witness had no corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by him at the time of occurrence or just thereafter was such which could not be expected from a prudent person, in such circumstances the evidence furnished by a related witness could be discarded.

Testimony of a witness, which was trustworthy and inspiring confidence could not be discarded on the ground of his close relation with the deceased

Close relative, if proved to be the natural witness of the occurrence, could not be termed as interested witness

Mere relationship of witnesses with the deceased would not detract from their veracity, as they had absolutely no motive of their own to involve the accused falsely by letting off the real culprits.

Complainant mentioned in his report that the deceased died at the spot whereas according to statement of Medical Officer probable time between injuries and death was within thirty minutes

Complainant and deceased had left the house together for bazaar but keeping a distance of sixteen paces was not only against the norms and customs prevailing in the area but also not appealable to a prudent mind

Site plan did not corroborate the version of complainant

Injured witness, who was an impartial witness, was abandoned by the prosecution which amounted to withholding the best evidence

Prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Testimony of closely related witness is required to be strongly supported by unimpeachable and worth reliance corroborative evidence.

Statement of related eye-witness can be relied upon to decide a case but such statement is required to be corroborated by independent evidence and it should be confidence inspiring and trustworthy.

In the matter of capital punishment, the accused would not stand absolved by making a mere allegation of dispute/enmity but would be required to bring on record such a dispute/enmity believed to have motivated them to involve the innocent person at the cost of the escape of real culprits.

Normally the evidence of blood-relation got more strength in absence of any mala fide or enmity because normally a blood-relation would not spare the real culprit by substituting him with an innocent person.