Appreciation of Evidence, Related Witnesses, and Triple Murder Conviction

Panel: Rustam S. Sidhwa and Riaz Ahmad, JJ.

This case, Criminal Appeal No. 148 and Murder Reference No. 76 of 1983, heard on December 13, 1986, involved Inayat as the Appellant against The State as the Respondent. The key legal issues examined by the court pertained to the appreciation of evidence, particularly the testimony of related and interested witnesses, and the necessity of corroboration in such cases. The court clarified that mere relationship is not sufficient to reject the testimony of an eyewitness if it inspires confidence. However, there is a distinct difference between a “related witness” and an “interested witness,” the latter having a motive for false implication. While a witness can be both, a rule of caution has been propounded by courts, now a rule of law, to seek corroboration for such testimony. This corroboration need not be spoken words; it can be any circumstance tending to connect the accused with the crime. The court also addressed the presumption of adverse inference for a party withholding evidence, applying it to a complainant who fails to appear despite being a material witness.

The court extensively analyzed the evidence, including that of the eye-witnesses, the recoveries made, and the medical evidence. It found the medical evidence consistent with the ocular account, indicating that the injuries could have been caused by a hatchet and a spear. The court considered the accused’s conduct after the incident, specifically his abscondence, as a strong piece of corroborative evidence against him. Furthermore, the recoveries of the hatchet and spear at the instance of the accused, coupled with the matching blood group of the hatchet and the deceased, were deemed highly incriminating and provided strong corroboration to the eye-witnesses’ accounts. The court also noted that the presence of injuries on the deceased, not explained by the accused, further strengthened the prosecution’s case. For the stated reasons, the court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, confirming the death sentence and fine awarded to the appellant for causing triple murder.

Download PDF