Witness testimony
Azhar Mehmood v. State (2017 SCMR 135)
A test identification parade is of no evidentiary value if the accused are not identified with respect to a specific role in the incident, and in-court identification is unsafe if the witness had opportunity to see the accused in the dock.
Pathan v State (2015 SCMR 315)
Witness testimony describing “unnatural conduct” will be considered sceptically by the Court. Witness testimony will be discarded where the prosecution fails to prove witnesses actually observed the alleged crime.
Muhammad Ali v. State (2015 SCMR 137)
Witness testimony will not be given weight by the Court where it contradicts medical evidence, and where there are doubts as to whether the witnesses had been present at the scene of the alleged crime.
Muhammad Zaman v State and others (2014 SCMR 749)
When there are several inconsistencies in witness testimony and the evidence of a case, to the extent that the “prosecution version was full of doubts from whatever angle it was looked at” the accused cannot be convicted.
Muhammad Ismail v. The State (2017 SCMR 713)
Where the prosecution fails to prove motive, the death penalty should not be awarded. Confessions obtained without regard to due process are absolutely inadmissible. The Court may consider the particular sociocultural context of the defendant as a relevant mitigating factor.
