Notifications

An interested witness is an individual who has a direct stake or interest in the outcome of a legal proceeding, typically because they are connected to the case in a personal or financial manner. This interest could be due to various factors, such as a familial relationship with one of the parties involved, a financial interest in the case’s outcome, a personal connection to the events in question, or a vested interest in the success or failure of one side. Essentially, an interested witness has something to gain or lose based on the resolution of the legal matter they are testifying about.

The admissibility of statements made by interested witnesses can be a concern for several reasons:

  1. Bias: Interested witnesses may be perceived as having a bias or prejudice that could influence their testimony. Their personal interests may lead them to exaggerate or distort facts in favor of the party they support or against the opposing party.
  2. Credibility: Due to their perceived bias, the credibility of statements made by interested witnesses may be questioned. Courts and legal authorities may be concerned that their testimony is motivated by self-interest rather than an objective account of the events.
  3. Reliability: The reliability of statements from interested witnesses can be a concern because they may be more inclined to provide false or misleading information to protect their interests or achieve a desired outcome in the case.
  4. Fairness: Allowing statements from interested witnesses without careful scrutiny could potentially lead to an unfair legal process, where individuals with vested interests have undue influence over the proceedings.

To address these concerns, legal systems often have mechanisms in place to evaluate the credibility and reliability of statements from interested witnesses. This may include cross-examination by opposing counsel, the introduction of corroborating evidence, and careful assessment by judges and juries to determine the weight and admissibility of such statements. Ultimately, the goal is to ensure a fair and just legal process that considers all relevant evidence while accounting for any potential bias or vested interests of the witnesses involved.

In the context of Pakistani law, the admissibility of a witness’s statement, even if they are considered an interested witness, can only be dismissed when it is conclusively proven that the witness harbors an ulterior motive, whether due to enmity or other considerations. This fundamental principle has been consistently upheld in numerous legal cases, and this Court has consistently refrained from according weight to such a claim unless compelling reasons exist to demonstrate that the statement was given with an ulterior motive or as a result of personal animosity. There exists no rigid legal doctrine mandating the corroboration of an interested witness’s statement, and in fact, an uncorroborated account may be deemed reliable when it aligns with the surrounding circumstances.

In this context, reference is aptly made to several precedent-setting cases, including Khadim Hussain v. State (2010 SCMR 1090), Ashfaq Ahmed v. State (2007 SCMR 641), Shoukat Ali v. the State (PLD 2007 SC 93), and Muhammad Mansha v. The State (2001 SCMR 199). Notably, this Court’s ruling in the case of Iqbal alias Bala v. The State (1994 SCMR 1) underscores that mere friendship or familial relationship with the deceased is insufficient grounds for discrediting a witness, especially when no discernible motive exists for falsely implicating the accused.

Furthermore, the case of Muhammad Ehsan v. State (2006 SCMR 1857) reinforces this stance. It highlights that the status of being a widow of the deceased, in and of itself, does not automatically render a witness as interested, particularly when there is an absence of enmity between the witness and the accused. Even if the deceased had a history of enmity with the accused, this does not significantly impact the credibility and reliability of the widow’s testimony.In this case, both the Learned High Court and the trial Court meticulously examined this aspect of the case and ultimately rejected the plea that sought to undermine the credibility of the witness on the grounds of being an interested party.

Although this article was originally written in 2014, we have now updated it in September 2023 with some recent decisions between 2022-2023 below.

From the recent cases discussed below (2022 to 2023), there are several key takeaways regarding the statements of interested witnesses:

  1. Mere Relationship Not Sufficient to Discredit Testimony: In multiple cases, the courts emphasize that mere relationships between witnesses and the deceased or the complainant party are not sufficient grounds to discredit their testimony. It’s important to assess the intrinsic worth of the evidence.
  2. Interested Witnesses Can Be Reliable: The courts acknowledge that witnesses who are related or interested in the outcome of the case can still be reliable if their evidence is found to be independent, truthful, and confidence-inspiring.
  3. Presence and Credibility: The presence of witnesses at the scene of the incident is crucial for their credibility. If witnesses can establish their presence and provide a detailed, confidence-inspiring account of the events, their testimony is likely to be considered reliable.
  4. Motive to Falsely Implicate: To discredit the testimony of interested witnesses, the accused must establish that they had a motive to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Mere interest in the outcome is not enough; a specific motive must be shown.
  5. Medical and Corroborative Evidence: The presence of medical or corroborative evidence can strengthen the credibility of witnesses, even if they are related or interested. If the witness accounts align with medical or other supporting evidence, their testimony is more likely to be trusted.
  6. Natural Witnesses: Witnesses who can provide a detailed and confident account of the incident in a natural manner are considered natural witnesses. Their testimony is generally more reliable.
  7. Delay in Trial: In cases where the accused’s actions cause delays in the trial process, this can be a factor in considering bail petitions, but it doesn’t necessarily discredit witness statements.
  8. Judicial Discretion: Courts may exercise judicial discretion when considering the credibility of witnesses, especially when assessing whether the witnesses are telling the truth or if there’s an ulterior motive involved.

In summary, the key takeaway is that the credibility of interested witnesses is not automatically compromised due to their relationship or interest in the case. Their testimony should be evaluated based on its intrinsic worth, consistency with other evidence, and the presence of any specific motive to falsely implicate the accused.

 2023 SCMR 1375 (SUPREME-COURT)

In this case, the appellant Muhammad Ijaz was charged under S. 302(b) for qatl-i-amd. The issue at hand was the status of related witnesses in the context of being interested witnesses. The Supreme Court clarified that not all related witnesses can be considered interested witnesses; they can also be natural witnesses. When a crime occurs in the presence of family members, they assume the position of natural witnesses. If their evidence is reliable, cogent, and clear, the prosecution’s case should not be doubted. However, a related witness becomes an interested witness when their evidence is tainted with malice and shows a desire to implicate the accused by fabricating evidence. The court emphasized the need for close scrutiny of the evidence of eyewitnesses who are near relatives of the victim.

See also  EU Commission opens anti-dumping investigation into imports of solar glass originating in China

2023 PLD 40 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

This case involved a suit for declaration, correction of mutation entries, partition, possession, and permanent injunction. The plaintiff, Mst. Khan Bibi (widow), claimed her share in the legacy of her predecessor. The defendants contested the suit, alleging an oral will made by their predecessor regarding the property. The High Court ruled that oral evidence must be direct and that an interested witness’s testimony should be approached with caution. The court found that the testimony of one of the witnesses was inadmissible as hearsay, and the other witness’s partiality toward the plaintiff cast doubt on the reliability of their statements. The appeal was dismissed.

2023 YLR 976 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

The appellant, Muhammad Tahir, faced charges under Ss. 302(b), 147, and 149 for murder, rioting, and unlawful assembly. The court highlighted that the prosecution should benefit from doubt when there is no clear evidence of conspiracy or pre-planned attacks. In this case, the court found that both parties involved in the brawl deliberately portrayed themselves as innocent and failed to provide clear evidence. The prosecution’s case was further weakened by the lack of definite findings by the investigating officer. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was allowed.

2023 YLR 824 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

The accused, Asfand Yar, was charged with murder and attempt to commit murder. The court emphasized that related witnesses should not be automatically considered interested witnesses. In this case, the court found that the complainant and dwellers of the house could not be deemed interested witnesses, given the brutal murders of their family members. The absence of any justifiable explanation for false implication and the absence of ill-will or ulterior motives supported the prosecution’s case. However, the death sentence was reduced to life imprisonment while maintaining the conviction.

2023 YLR 629 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

The appellant, Muhammad Ayaz, faced charges under Ss. 302(b), 109, and 34 for murder, abetment, and common intention. The court emphasized that related witnesses, if found truthful and independent, do not necessarily require corroboration. The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges through direct, circumstantial, and medical evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2023 PCrLJ 1115 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

In this case, the accused Noor Zaman was charged with murder and other offenses. The court emphasized that mere relationship with the deceased should not discredit a witness unless their evidence lacks credibility. The court found that the prosecution had established the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt through coherent and confidence-inspiring evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

2023 PCrLJ 769 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

The accused Abdul Ghaffar and others faced charges of murder. The court noted that the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence and their credibility were crucial factors. In this case, doubts arose regarding the presence of the witnesses at the scene due to various inconsistencies. Moreover, the witnesses did not make any resistance or seek help during the alleged occurrence, which raised doubts about their testimony. The appeal against conviction was allowed.

2023 YLRN 8 (QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN)

The case involved charges of murder and related offenses. The court emphasized that being related to the deceased or injured does not automatically make a witness interested. The credibility of witnesses should be assessed independently, and mere relationship should not lead to the rejection of their testimony. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

2023 YLRN 24 (PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT)

The appellant, Musafar, faced charges of murder and related offenses. The court highlighted that being closely related to the deceased or injured should not discredit a witness unless their testimony lacks credibility. In this case, the witnesses were related to both the complainant and the accused, and there was no evidence of enmity or false implication. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Muhammad Ayaz v. State (2023 YLR 1537 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Muhammad Ayaz, charged with offenses under Sections 302(b) and 325, the Lahore High Court placed significant reliance on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, including the complainant. The court observed that these witnesses were natural witnesses due to their proximity to the place of occurrence and their status as residents of the same area. Notably, the complainant was the father of the deceased, while the other eyewitness had no familial relation to the deceased or complainant. The court found no evidence to suggest any motive or enmity that could have incentivized these witnesses to falsely implicate the accused. Moreover, the accused’s arrest on the day of the incident, along with the occurrence happening in broad daylight and the witnesses’ familiarity with the accused, further bolstered the credibility of their statements. As a result, while the court upheld the conviction, it commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment due to mitigating circumstances.

 Syed Ali Akbar v. State (2023 YLR 901 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Syed Ali Akbar, facing a charge under Section 302(b), the Lahore High Court took a different approach and ultimately acquitted the accused based on the unnatural conduct of the witnesses. The court questioned why the witnesses, who claimed to have witnessed the accused taking the deceased, did not disclose this crucial information to the complainant earlier. Furthermore, these witnesses had close familial ties to the deceased, and their inability to provide a reasonable explanation for their conduct raised doubts about their credibility. The prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the accused’s acquittal.

Syed Abdur Rashid v. Rana Muhammad Anwer (2023 YLR 309 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Syed Abdur Rashid, involving a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell property, the Lahore High Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim due to various inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence. Notably, the plaintiff failed to specify the date of the alleged agreement accurately. Additionally, the testimony of the alleged broker, who played a role in the deal, was questionable. Furthermore, the absence of critical evidence, such as the stamp vendor’s register, and the lack of independent witnesses to corroborate the payment through checks cast doubts on the plaintiff’s case. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree in favor of the plaintiff.

Akbar alias Mohsin v. State (2023 PCrLJ 917 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Akbar alias Mohsin, charged with offenses under Sections 302(b), 365, and 201, the Lahore High Court acquitted the accused based on doubts surrounding the last seen evidence. The court found the witnesses’ presence at the scene questionable, and their explanations for being there were inconsistent. Furthermore, their failure to justify their presence and the lack of corroborative evidence weakened the prosecution’s case. The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt, leading to the accused’s acquittal.

Case Analysis: Muhammad Naveed v. State (2023 PCrLJ 896 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Muhammad Naveed, charged with offenses under Sections 302(b), 109, and 34, the Lahore High Court acquitted the accused due to material contradictions and inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements. The court highlighted the discrepancies between the complainant’s and the eye-witness’s testimonies, including their relationship to the second wife of the complainant and the timing of events. The court also noted that the witnesses’ presence at the hospital and their knowledge of the incident were questionable. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution’s case lacked credibility, leading to the accused’s acquittal.

See also  PPRA Rules Query

Case Analysis: Muhammad Iqbal v. State (2023 PCrLJN 2 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Muhammad Iqbal, charged with offenses under Section 302, 109, and 34, the Lahore High Court acquitted the accused due to the non-availability of justification for the witnesses’ presence at the spot. The court raised questions about the complainant’s and the eye-witness’s presence at the scene, particularly emphasizing the absence of a certified copy of warabandi to confirm the presence of warabandi for irrigation. Additionally, the absence of an FIR at the alleged time of occurrence raised doubts about the witnesses’ credibility. In the absence of credible explanations for their presence, the court determined that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt, leading to the accused’s acquittal.

 Muhammad Umair v. State (2023 PCrLJN 16 Lahore High Court)

In the case of Muhammad Umair, charged with various offenses, including Section 302, the Lahore High Court acquitted the accused due to doubts surrounding the presence of witnesses. The court stressed the importance of credible explanations for the witnesses’ presence at the scene, which were lacking in this case. The court highlighted discrepancies in the witnesses’ statements and found their evidence untrustworthy and unreliable. Consequently, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a shadow of a doubt, leading to the accused’s acquittal.

Ghulam Sarwar Ghangro v. State (2023 YLR 1368 Karachi High Court)

In the case of Ghulam Sarwar Ghangro, charged with various offenses, including Section 302(b), the Karachi High Court rejected the defense’s contention that the witnesses’ relationship with the deceased rendered them unreliable. The court found that the witnesses had specifically testified against the accused and that their presence at the scene was confirmed. The court noted the absence of evidence suggesting that the accused was falsely implicated. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, as the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal.

Citation: 2023 YLR 1227 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Mansoor Ahmed

Opponent: State

Charge: Section 302(b) – Qatl-i-amd (Murder)

Key Points:

  • Accused and co-accused fired upon complainant party, resulting in one death and two injuries.
  • Defense claimed that witnesses were related and interested, making their testimony unreliable.
  • Court held that eyewitnesses provided a detailed account of the incident, establishing the date, time, place, and events.
  • Two of three witnesses were injured and not shown to be falsely implicated.
  • Prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt with independent, reliable evidence.
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Citation: 2023 YLR 750 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Muhammad Ashraf

Opponent: State

Charge: Section 302(b) – Qatl-i-amd (Murder)

Key Points:

  • Accused charged with the murder of the complainant’s brother.
  • Prosecution witnesses were close relatives of the deceased.
  • Court held that mere relationship did not discredit their testimony.
  • Witnesses provided a confident and detailed account of the incident.
  • Accused failed to establish any ill will or enmity.
  • Prosecution successfully proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt.
  • Appeal dismissed.

Citation: 2023 YLR 395 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Lal Muhammad

Opponent: State

Charge: Section 302(b) – Qatl-i-amd (Murder)

Key Points:

  • Accused charged with the murder of his wife and daughter.
  • Witnesses were related but not shown to have enmity with the accused.
  • Three eyewitnesses, who were also relatives of the accused, provided reliable and corroborated evidence.
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Citation: 2023 PCrLJ 355 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Ghulam Abbas Magsi

Opponent: State

Charges: Sections 302(b), 324, 148 & 149 – Murder, Attempted Murder, Rioting

Key Points:

  • Accused and co-accused assaulted the complainant party, resulting in five deaths and five injuries.
  • Prosecution witnesses were relatives but had no enmity with the accused.
  • Witnesses provided reliable and trustworthy evidence, supported by medical evidence.
  • Prosecution successfully proved its case beyond any doubt.
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Citation: 2023 PCrLJ 247 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Ali Jan

Opponent: State

Charge: Section 302(b) – Qatl-i-amd (Murder)

Key Points:

  • Accused charged with the murder of the complainant’s son.
  • Witnesses were closely related but not inimical or interested in falsely implicating the accused.
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Citation: 2023 PCrLJ 186 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Jahanzeb Khan

Opponent: State

Charges: Sections 302(b), 324 & 34 – Murder, Attempted Murder, Common Intention

Key Points:

  • Accused and co-accused fired upon the complainant party, resulting in one death and injuries to the complainant.
  • Eyewitness was related but lacked evidence of ill will or enmity.
  • Prosecution failed to prove motive for the accused’s actions.
  • Death sentence reduced to life imprisonment.
  • Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.

Citation: 2023 MLD 1172 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Saeed Ahmed Ghangro

Opponent: State

Charges: Sections 302(b) & 34 – Murder, Common Intention

Key Points:

  • Accused charged with murder by firing.
  • Witnesses were relatives but testified against the accused.
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Citation: 2023 MLD 1095 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Kaleem Baig

Opponent: State

Charges: Sections 6, 9(c) & 25 – Possession of Narcotics

Key Points:

  • Accused found in possession of 127 kilograms of charas.
  • Prosecution relied on police officials’ testimony.
  • Defense argued lack of independent witnesses.
  • Court emphasized that police officials’ testimony can be reliable.
  • Appeal disposed of with sentence modification.

Citation: 2023 MLD 1040 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Nisar

Opponent: State

Charges: Sections 302(b), 324, 148, 149 & 337-H(2) – Murder, Attempted Murder, Rioting, Unlawful Assembly

Key Points:

  • Accused charged with murder and other offenses.
  • Witnesses were related but testified against the accused.
  • Relationship alone did not discredit their testimony.
  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.

Citation: 2023 MLD 1040 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Appellant: Nisar

Opponent: State

Key Points:

  • Witnesses’ credibility depends on the intrinsic value of their statements.
  • There is no universal rule to disbelieve interested witnesses.
  • Prudence and reasonableness guide witness credibility assessment.
  • Even respected individuals may provide unbelievable statements if illogical.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 749 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant: MASHOOQUE

Side Opponent: State

Legal Issue: Appreciation of evidence, related witnesses, and sentence reduction

Summary: The accused was charged with committing the murder of the complainant’s cousin. The eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased. The court emphasized that merely being close relatives of the deceased did not diminish the credibility of their evidence. It stressed that unless proven otherwise, it cannot be concluded that close relatives would falsely implicate someone in a crime. The court found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond any doubt, although the motive was not established. As a result, the death sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 426 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant: LIAQAT ALI

Side Opponent: State

Legal Issue: Appreciation of evidence, related and interested witness, and conviction

Summary: The accused was charged with the murder of the complainant’s nephew. The defense argued that the witnesses were near relatives and thus interested, making their evidence unreliable. The court rejected this argument, stating that the eye-witnesses had provided detailed information about the incident and were also close relatives of the accused with no enmity. The court held that suggestions of enmity without proof were not valid. It concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against conviction.

See also  Competitive Bid Writing and Bid Management

Citation Name: 2023 YLRN 26 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant: ALI WADHAYO SHAR

Side Opponent: State

Legal Issue: Appreciation of evidence, related and interested witnesses, and reliance on testimony

Summary: The accused were charged with firing upon the complainant’s party, resulting in the death of the complainant’s grandson. While the witnesses were related to the deceased, they testified against the accused. The court noted that the accused was also a near relative of the complainant. It found no evidence to suggest that the accused was falsely implicated. The court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal against conviction.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 83 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant: State

Side Opponent: MUHAMMAD AYAZ

Legal Issue: Appeal against acquittal, appreciation of evidence, and duty of the trial court

Summary: The accused were charged with the murder of the complainant’s brother. The trial court acquitted the accused due to doubts about the complainant’s presence at the scene and the lack of corroborating evidence. The appellate court upheld the acquittal, citing various discrepancies in the complainant’s account and the absence of key witnesses. It emphasized the duty of the trial court to actively seek the truth and dispense justice in accordance with the law.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJN 11 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Side Appellant: RAZ MUHAMMAD

Side Opponent: State

Legal Issue: Witness credibility and intrinsic value of statements

Summary: The accused were charged with the murder of the complainant’s son during a robbery attempt. The court emphasized that the credibility of a witness depends on the intrinsic value of their statement and that there is no universal principle to disbelieve interested witnesses. It stressed the importance of assessing the content of a statement rather than the person making it.

Citation Name: 2022 PLD 504 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant: ABDUL AZIZ

Side Opponent: Mst. ZAIB-UN-NISSA

Legal Issue: Fraud and misrepresentation in property transfer

Summary: The case involved a brother depriving his illiterate and Pardanashin sisters of their property through a fraudulent gift deed. The court found that the sisters were unaware of the nature of the document they were signing due to their illiteracy. It noted that the brother had taken advantage of their situation through fraud and misrepresentation. The court held that the transaction was not proved, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1620 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant: MUHAMMAD ILYAS

Side Opponent: ISHFAQ alias MUNSHI

Legal Issue: Appeal against acquittal, withholding material evidence, and benefit of doubt

Summary: The accused were charged with the murder of the complainant’s brother. The court noted that key witnesses were not produced, including an independent witness whose absence led to a presumption against the prosecution. The court found that the case lacked independent corroboration, and the accused could not be assumed guilty solely on the statements of interested witnesses. As a result, the appeal against conviction was allowed.

Citation Name: 2022 YLR 1439 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant: SAMIULLAH

Side Opponent: State

Legal Issue: Benefit of doubt, withholding best evidence, and appeal against conviction

Summary: The accused were charged with assaulting the complainant’s party with daggers, resulting in the death of the complainant’s father. The court noted that crucial witnesses, including shopkeepers and an allegedly injured person, were not produced. It emphasized that the prosecution lacked independent corroboration, and the accused could not be assumed to be culprits solely on the statements of interested witnesses. The appeal against conviction was allowed.

In the case of Samiullah (2022 YLR 1439), it was highlighted that the relationship of witnesses alone is not a valid reason to dismiss their testimony. If their evidence is found to be independent and truthful, it should be considered. This principle was also upheld in the case of Naseebullah (2022 YLR 885), where it was reiterated that being related to the deceased is not grounds for discarding their testimonies if they are found to be credible.

Similarly, in the case of Master Muhammad Naseem (2022 MLD 1346), it was established that the relationship of witnesses with the deceased should not automatically lead to the rejection of their testimonies, especially if their evidence is found to be independent and trustworthy.

Furthermore, the courts have highlighted that the intrinsic worth of a witness’s testimony should be the primary consideration, rather than their relationship with the deceased. In the case of Ghulam Jan (2022 YLR 1547), it was emphasized that it is the content of the witness’s statement that matters, not their personal relationship.

Other cases from 2022 (in summary)

Case 1: HAQ NAWAZ v. State (2022 YLR 721)

  • Substitution of Accused: Substitution is a rare phenomenon, as interested witnesses typically wouldn’t allow real culprits to go free by involving innocent persons.

Case 2: HAQ NAWAZ v. State (2022 YLR 721)

  • Witness Credibility: The mere relationship of prosecution witnesses with the deceased is not enough to discredit their testimony.

Case 3: Mst. SHARIFAN MAI v. KHUDA BAKHSH (2022 YLR 147)

  • Declaration Suit: Suit property claimed to be transferred to the wife by deceased; acknowledgment deed in existence. Defendants contended that the deceased was ill at the time. Trial court decreed, appeal allowed. Plaintiff’s witnesses’ deposition upheld. Defendants failed to prove illness at the time of deed. Revision petition accepted.

Case 4: ABID ALI v. State (2022 YLRN 15)

  • Narcotic Possession Bail: Accused allegedly found with contraband. Delay in trial. Previous bail petition withdrawn. Trial not concluded due to accused’s actions. Bail granted due to the extended delay in trial.

Case 5: KASHIF ALI alias MOJ v. State (2022 YLR 1960)

  • Witness Credibility: Relationship with complainant party alone doesn’t render witnesses unreliable unless a motive to falsely implicate the accused is established.

Case 6: QURBAN ALI BULLAR v. State (2022 YLR 1907)

  • Murder Conviction: Accused charged with murder of complainant’s son. Related witnesses considered trustworthy, no enmity with accused. Conviction upheld based on reliable evidence.

Case 7: ASHIQUE ALI v. State (2022 YLR 1211)

  • Murder Conviction: Accused charged with murder of complainant’s father. Witnesses related but their presence at the scene established. No evidence of bias. Conviction upheld.

Case 8: MUHAMMAD AAMIR v. State (2022 YLR 484)

  • Terrorism & Narcotics Charges: Accused found with narcotics. Delay in trial due to accused’s actions. Bail granted due to extended trial delay.

Case 9: SHARAFUDDIN alias SHARFOO v. State (2022 YLR 324)

  • Witness Credibility: Witnesses detailing the incident in a confidence-inspiring manner are considered natural witnesses. Accused must establish them as interested witnesses to discredit their testimony.

Case 10: MUHAMMAD RASHID v. State (2022 YLR 119)

  • Murder Conviction: Accused charged with murder of the deceased. Witnesses related but their presence established at the scene. No evidence of bias. Conviction upheld based on reliable evidence.

By The Josh and Mak Team

Josh and Mak International is a distinguished law firm with a rich legacy that sets us apart in the legal profession. With years of experience and expertise, we have earned a reputation as a trusted and reputable name in the field. Our firm is built on the pillars of professionalism, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to providing excellent legal services. We have a profound understanding of the law and its complexities, enabling us to deliver tailored legal solutions to meet the unique needs of each client. As a virtual law firm, we offer affordable, high-quality legal advice delivered with the same dedication and work ethic as traditional firms. Choose Josh and Mak International as your legal partner and gain an unfair strategic advantage over your competitors.

error: Content is Copyright protected !!