Najafi Law Associates Acts in High Court Appeal  on Chance Witnesses in Murder Case

Our chambers represented by Barrister Haider Ali Najafi acted in a criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court arising from a conviction in a murder case where our client was given death penalty.  The central issue concerned the legal effect of Chance Witnesses at the place of incident. 

“Why Were You There?” ; The Question That Undid a Murder Conviction

In murder trials, eye-witness testimony often appears to be the strongest form of evidence. When someone stands in court and says, “I saw the accused commit the crime,” it can seem decisive.

But the law does not accept such statements at face value.

In a recent murder appeal, the High Court set aside a death sentence after asking a simple but powerful question:

“Why were the witnesses at the scene?”

Not Every Eye-Witness Is Automatically Reliable

Criminal courts distinguish between two types of witnesses:

• Natural witnesses: people who would normally be present at the scene. For example, a shopkeeper inside his shop or a resident standing outside his own home.

• Chance witnesses: people who claim to be present by coincidence, even though they do not live, work, or routinely pass through that area.

The law does not automatically reject a chance witness. However, it requires something important:

The witness must give a clear, practical, and believable explanation for being at that specific place at that specific time.

If that explanation is missing or unconvincing, the court treats the testimony with caution, especially in serious cases where a person’s life is at stake.

What Happened in the Appeal?

In the case under discussion, the prosecution relied mainly on two eye-witnesses who claimed they had seen the shooting.

Upon closer examination, several concerns emerged:

• Neither witness lived at or near the place of occurrence.

• Their houses did not face the scene.

• They claimed to be standing near a shop but provided no convincing reason for being there.

• The complainant admitted that no explanation for their presence was mentioned in the original complaint.

• The shopkeeper, the most natural and neutral witness, was never produced.

• A third cited witness was given up because he did not support the prosecution’s version.

The High Court categorised these individuals as chance witnesses.

Since their presence at the scene remained unexplained, their testimony was treated as doubtful. The Court concluded that such evidence could not safely support a death sentence.

The conviction was set aside.

This shows being an eye witness is not enough but eye witness has to explain:

• What they saw?

• Who they are?

• What were they doing there?

• Did their presence make sense at the place of incident?

If those questions are not answered convincingly, reasonable doubt arises. And where reasonable doubt exists, the accused is entitled to benefit of that doubt.

Read the complete judgment below: