Related Witnesses in Murder Cases: Supreme Court Explains When Family Testimony Can Sustain Conviction

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

What the Supreme Court held

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that eyewitness testimony cannot be discarded merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased. Where family witnesses are naturally present, consistently describe the occurrence, withstand cross-examination and receive support from medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence, their testimony may carry substantial evidentiary value.

In Muhammad Imran v The State, Criminal Petitions No. 1381 and 1395 of 2018, two brothers of the deceased witnessed a daytime shooting in the family's own Baithak. The FIR was registered within an hour, the accused was their cousin, the medical evidence supported the firing account, and the recovered pistol matched the crime empty.

The Court maintained Muhammad Imran's conviction under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code and his sentence of imprisonment for life. It rejected both his request for acquittal and the complainant's request to enhance the sentence to death.

The prosecution case

The case arose from FIR No. 192 of 2016, registered on 9 May 2016 at Police Station Sadar, Dera Ghazi Khan, under section 302 PPC.

Complainant Muhammad Fayyaz alleged that he was sitting in the family's Baithak at Mouza Churhatta Basti Waliya with his brothers Fahim Akhtar and Muhammad Khan and their uncle Karim Bakhsh.

At about 8:45 a.m., Muhammad Imran allegedly arrived on a motorcycle carrying a .30-bore pistol and asked for Muhammad Riaz.

When Muhammad Khan said that Riaz was not present, Imran allegedly declared that he would not spare any of Riaz's brothers and fired at Muhammad Khan. The bullet struck his abdomen.

The witnesses attempted to apprehend Imran, but he escaped with the pistol, leaving his motorcycle and shoes at the scene.

Muhammad Khan was taken to the Trauma Centre, Dera Ghazi Khan but died from the injury.

The alleged motive was that Imran suspected Muhammad Riaz of having an illicit relationship with his sister. The prosecution said Imran came to kill Riaz but shot his brother Muhammad Khan when Riaz was not found.

Trial and High Court decisions

The Sessions Judge, Dera Ghazi Khan convicted Muhammad Imran on 16 September 2017 under section 302(b) PPC and sentenced him to death as Ta'zir.

He was also ordered to pay Rs. 500,000 as compensation to the deceased's legal heirs under section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The amount was recoverable as arrears of land revenue, with six months' simple imprisonment in default.

The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dismissed his appeal on 26 November 2018 but reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life. The murder reference was answered in the negative.

Imran approached the Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal against his conviction. Complainant Muhammad Fayyaz filed a separate petition seeking enhancement of the life sentence to death.

Why the related eyewitnesses were believed

The two eyewitnesses were Muhammad Fayyaz and Fahim Akhtar, the real brothers of the deceased.

The Supreme Court found their account straightforward, consistent and reliable on all material particulars, including:

• the date and time of occurrence;
• the place of occurrence;
• Imran's arrival on a motorcycle;
• use of the .30-bore pistol;
• the firing at Muhammad Khan;
• Imran's escape; and
• the motorcycle and shoes left at the scene.

Both witnesses lived in the same house, and the shooting occurred in their own Baithak during the morning. Their presence was therefore natural rather than accidental or specially arranged.

Although Fahim Akhtar worked as a personal assistant in the Anti-Corruption Department, he explained that he was on leave that day. The defence produced no document or other reliable evidence showing that he was at work.

Extensive cross-examination did not discredit their presence or testimony.

Relationship with the deceased is not a legal disqualification

The Court reiterated that a witness's relationship with the deceased is not, by itself, a lawful reason to reject testimony.

The correct inquiry is whether the witness:

• was naturally present;
• had a genuine opportunity to observe;
• gave a consistent account on material matters;
• had a motive to falsely implicate the accused;
• withstood effective cross-examination; and
• received support from the surrounding evidence.

A close relative may have a strong interest in ensuring that the actual offender is prosecuted rather than allowing the real culprit to escape while an innocent person is punished.

Relationship can create a need for careful scrutiny, but it does not automatically create unreliability.

The Supreme Court referred to Aman Ullah v The State (2023 SCMR 723), Imran Mehmood v The State (2023 SCMR 795), Asfandiyar v The State and others (2021 SCMR 2009), and Muhammad Abbas and another v The State (2023 SCMR 487).

Relationship with the accused reduced the risk of mistaken identity

Muhammad Imran was the eyewitnesses' cousin through their paternal aunt.

The occurrence took place in broad daylight, and the parties already knew one another. The Court found no realistic possibility of mistaken identity.

The witnesses were related both to the deceased and to the accused, and no prior animosity with Imran was established.

In the particular circumstances, the Court considered it implausible that the deceased's real brothers would falsely implicate their own cousin while protecting the actual killer of their brother.

This does not create a universal presumption that relatives always speak the truth. The conclusion depended on natural presence, prior familiarity, lack of proved hostility, prompt reporting, consistent testimony and objective corroboration.

Prompt FIR reduced the possibility of fabrication

The shooting occurred at approximately 8:45 a.m. and was reported at 9:45 a.m.

The Supreme Court held that prompt reporting reduced the possibility of consultation, deliberation or fabrication in nominating the accused.

A prompt FIR is not substantive proof of guilt and does not automatically make every allegation true. Its evidentiary value lies in preserving an early version before there is substantial opportunity to construct or improve a story.

Courts must still examine who provided the information, the distance to the police station, the circumstances of reporting and consistency with later evidence.

Here, the prompt FIR was one part of a larger reliable evidentiary chain.

Medical evidence fully supported the firing account

The medical officer found a firearm entry wound measuring approximately 0.5 by 0.5 centimetres on the right side of the abdomen, below and to the right of the umbilicus, with a corresponding exit wound on the back.

The injury was ante-mortem, caused by a firearm and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

The Court held that the medical findings supported the eyewitness account and disclosed no inconsistency between the direct and medical evidence.

Medical evidence did not identify Imran by itself. Identification came from reliable eyewitnesses, while the medical findings confirmed the nature, location and fatal effect of the shot they described.

Ballistic and circumstantial evidence strengthened the case

A crime empty was recovered from the scene. A .30-bore pistol was recovered on Imran's pointation.

The forensic report positively connected the recovered pistol with the crime empty.

Imran was also alleged to have left his motorcycle and shoes at the scene while escaping.

The combination of direct identification, prompt reporting, medical compatibility, weapon recovery and positive ballistic matching supplied mutually reinforcing evidence.

This distinguishes the case from prosecutions in which a weapon is recovered but not connected with the crime, or where medical evidence is used to repair an unreliable ocular account.

The defence version

Imran denied the prosecution case in his statements under sections 342 and 340(2) CrPC and presented a different account.

He alleged that Muhammad Riaz had teased his sister Shamim Mai in the fields on the previous day. His mother sent him to complain to his paternal aunt.

According to Imran, he passed the Baithak and saw Riaz and the deceased playing cricket. When he explained his purpose, they became angry and assaulted him. The deceased allegedly struck him with a cricket bat.

Imran claimed that Riaz then brought a pistol from a room and fired at him, but the bullet accidentally struck Muhammad Khan.

He also claimed that his father produced him before police in an injured condition but that police did not arrange a medical examination.

The defence admitted important prosecution facts

The Supreme Court observed that the defence account admitted Imran's presence at the same place on the same date and at the relevant time.

It also supplied a dispute involving his sister and Muhammad Riaz, materially supporting the prosecution's alleged motive.

An accused's admission of presence does not prove the prosecution's complete account. It may, however, remove identity and alibi disputes and shift attention to whether the alternative explanation is reasonably probable.

The Court therefore examined whether the assault and accidental-firing claim was supported by timely and reliable evidence.

Why the alleged assault was disbelieved

The Court identified several defects in the defence:

• Shamim Mai testified about the previous day's incident but said nothing about Imran being beaten by the deceased or Riaz;
• Imran was arrested on 16 May 2016, and his arrest record did not mention any injury;
• police and investigation documents contained no record of injuries;
• the defence was not disclosed when the charge was framed;
• it was not put to prosecution witnesses in cross-examination;
• it was not presented to the investigating officer;
• it was not raised before the magistrate during remand;
• no cross-version was registered;
• no complaint was made to senior police officers; and
• no application under section 22-A CrPC was filed for registration of his version.

The Court treated the prolonged silence as inconsistent with the expected conduct of a person claiming to have been attacked.

The medical examination ten months later did not prove the defence

Imran applied for medical examination on 17 March 2017, about ten months after the occurrence.

A medical board found an old healed fracture of the left clavicle with callus formation. The duration could not be fixed because the fracture was more than six months old.

The examining doctor said the injury might have resulted from a fall or blunt weapon and could not connect it with the occurrence.

The report therefore proved only an old healed injury. It did not establish when, where or by whom it had been caused.

Without independent corroboration, the late medical evidence could not support the claim that the complainant party assaulted Imran during the shooting incident.

When a belated defence loses credibility

A defence is not false merely because it is raised late, and an accused is not required to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

Delay becomes important where a version that could naturally have been stated earlier is absent from:

• arrest and remand proceedings;
• police or medical records;
• cross-examination of prosecution witnesses;
• the investigation;
• a timely counter-report; and
• applications seeking official action.

The court must consider whether the accused had a reasonable opportunity to raise the matter and whether objective material supports the later claim.

In this case, the ten-month delay, missing contemporaneous record and failure to confront witnesses led the Court to characterize the assault and accidental-firing story as a fabricated afterthought.

Why section 302(c) PPC did not apply

The defence argued that any offence established by the record should fall under section 302(c), not section 302(b), PPC.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument. It found that Imran armed himself with a pistol, went to the place of occurrence with prior intention and deliberately fired at the abdomen, a vital part of the body.

A single shot does not automatically reduce the offence. The court examines the weapon, targeted body part, circumstances, intention, force and surrounding conduct.

The submission might have carried weight if the defence had proved an assault, legal exception or mitigating circumstance affecting intention. It failed to do so.

The conviction under section 302(b) therefore remained intact.

Why life imprisonment was maintained instead of death

The trial court had imposed death, but the High Court reduced the sentence to imprisonment for life because Muhammad Khan was not Imran's intended target. The prosecution case itself was that Imran came looking for Muhammad Riaz.

The Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or perversity in treating that circumstance as mitigating for sentence.

It therefore refused both to reduce the conviction under section 302(b) and to enhance the life sentence back to death.

The ruling does not establish that killing an unintended person always excludes the death penalty. Sentencing depends on the complete facts, the proved intention, manner of occurrence and recognized mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Practical guidance for defence counsel

When related witnesses support a prosecution, defence counsel should avoid relying only on their relationship with the deceased.

The more effective inquiry is:

• Were the witnesses naturally present?
• Did they know the accused beforehand?
• Was the FIR prompt?
• Is there a proven motive for false implication?
• Did cross-examination expose a material contradiction?
• Does medical evidence fit the alleged shot?
• Does the recovered weapon match the crime empty?
• Is the defence version timely and consistently suggested?
• Are alleged defence injuries recorded at arrest or remand?
• Was a counter-version or section 22-A application pursued?

If an alternative occurrence is asserted, it should be put to relevant prosecution witnesses and supported by available contemporaneous material.

Practical guidance for prosecutors and trial courts

Prosecutors should establish why related witnesses were naturally present and should connect their testimony with prompt reporting, medical findings, recoveries and forensic evidence.

Trial courts should not accept or reject a witness merely because of kinship. A reasoned judgment should address credibility, presence, prior familiarity, possible hostility, consistency and corroboration.

Late defence injuries must be assessed carefully. The court should distinguish between an injury genuinely connected with the occurrence and an old or unrelated condition that merely proves an injury existed at some uncertain time.

Sentencing under section 302(b) requires a separate assessment. A conviction may remain sound while a mitigating circumstance justifies life imprisonment rather than death.

Final order

Criminal Petition No. 1381 of 2018 filed by Muhammad Imran was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. His conviction under section 302(b) PPC and sentence of imprisonment for life remained intact.

Criminal Petition No. 1395 of 2018 filed by Muhammad Fayyaz seeking enhancement of the sentence to death was also dismissed, and leave was refused.

The judgment was announced in open court at Islamabad on 24 September 2026 and is marked not approved for reporting.

Conclusion

Muhammad Imran v The State reaffirms that related witnesses are not inferior witnesses. Their testimony may sustain a murder conviction where their presence is natural, identity is certain, the FIR is prompt, cross-examination does not damage credibility and objective evidence supplies strong corroboration.

The judgment also shows why a belated alternative account may fail when it was absent from arrest, remand, investigation and cross-examination records and is supported only by a much later medical finding of uncertain origin.

Finally, the decision separates conviction from sentence: intentional firing at a vital part supported liability under section 302(b), while the fact that the deceased was not the intended target was accepted as sufficient mitigation to maintain life imprisonment rather than death.

This commentary is independent legal analysis for research and general information. The supplied judgment, applicable legislation and later judicial treatment should be checked before reliance in proceedings.