# The only witnesses are the victim's family. Does their evidence count? > Yes. In 2023 the Supreme Court said that "related" is not the same as "interested": a witness is interested only when he or she gains something from seeing the accused punished. Evidence cannot be thrown out merely because the witnesses are family. - Topic: Criminal law - Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan - Citation: 2023 SCMR 831 - The myth: "The victim's family can't be witnesses." Verdict: Wrong. - Watch: https://failegal.site/media/rishta (video https://failegal.site/media/rishta/reel.mp4, 1:02) - Published by FAI Legal on 2026-10-10 Crimes often happen at home, in the fields or in the street, where the only people present are the victim's own family. Many people believe that such witnesses will not be believed because they are related. This matters to families of victims who are the only witnesses to what happened, and to accused persons who want to know how such evidence is judged. ## Key points - The Supreme Court in 2023 SCMR 831: "The term 'related' is not equivalent to 'interested'" (paragraph 6). - A witness is interested only when he or she "derives some benefit in seeing an accused person punished" (paragraph 6). - Evidence of eye-witnesses is not to be discarded merely because they happen to be related witnesses (paragraph 6). - The testimony of an injured eye-witness "carries more evidentiary value" (paragraph 6). The life sentences were upheld and leave refused (paragraph 7). ## The rule in one line Being the victim's relative does not make a witness unreliable. The court asks whether the witness gains anything from the accused being punished, and whether the account itself is believable. A relative who was there, and especially one who was injured, can be the most natural witness of all. ## What happened in this case On 5 October 2011, at about 7:30 in the morning, in a village in Chiniot, a mother and her daughters were walking out to pick cotton (paragraph 2). The accused opened fire. The mother and one of her daughters were killed, and another daughter was injured (paragraph 2). The only eye-witnesses were the injured daughter and her sister (paragraph 6). The High Court reduced the death sentence to imprisonment for life on two counts. ## What the defence argued In the Supreme Court the defence argued that the prosecution witnesses were "interested and related" and should not be believed (paragraph 4). ## What the Supreme Court said The Supreme Court decided the petition on 16 February 2023. It called the two sisters "the only and most natural witnesses" of the occurrence (paragraph 6). It held that "the term 'related' is not equivalent to 'interested'", that a witness is interested only when he or she derives some benefit in seeing an accused person punished, that the testimony of an injured eye-witness carries more evidentiary value, and that such evidence is not to be discarded merely because the witnesses happen to be related (paragraph 6). The petition was dismissed and leave refused. The life sentences stand (paragraph 7). ## The case at a glance - **Facts:** On 5 October 2011 at about 7:30 a.m., in a village in Chiniot, a mother and her daughters were going to pick cotton when the accused fired, killing the mother and one daughter and injuring another daughter. The injured daughter and her sister were the only eye-witnesses. The High Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment on two counts. - **The question:** Whether the evidence of the eye-witnesses could be discarded because they were related to the deceased. - **What the Court held:** No. Related is not the same as interested. The petition was dismissed, leave refused, and the life sentences upheld. - **Why:** A witness is interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the accused being punished. The sisters were the only and most natural witnesses; the testimony of an injured eye-witness carries more evidentiary value; and evidence is not discarded merely because witnesses are related. - **Limits:** This does not mean relatives are always believed. Their evidence is still tested like any other, and a witness who does gain from the accused's punishment may be treated with caution. ## The law it relies on ## What this does not mean - It does not mean relatives are automatically believed. The court still tests whether their account is natural and consistent with the rest of the evidence. - It does not mean an interested witness is never possible. A witness who gains from seeing the accused punished is interested, related or not. - It does not lower the burden of proof. The prosecution must still prove its case. ## Questions people ask ### Can the victim's family be witnesses in a murder case? Yes. The Supreme Court said in 2023 SCMR 831 that related is not the same as interested, and that evidence is not discarded merely because the witnesses are related. ### What makes a witness interested? According to the Supreme Court, a witness is interested only when he or she derives some benefit in seeing the accused punished (2023 SCMR 831, paragraph 6). ### Does an injured witness count for more? The Supreme Court said the testimony of an injured eye-witness carries more evidentiary value (2023 SCMR 831, paragraph 6). ## Sources - Aqil v. The State, 2023 SCMR 831, Supreme Court of Pakistan, 16 February 2023, paras 2, 4, 6, 7. Related is not equivalent to interested; injured eye-witness carries more evidentiary value; related witnesses' evidence not discarded on that ground alone; life sentences upheld, leave refused. (verified against full text) (official text: https://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/downloads_judgements/j.p._553_2017.pdf) ## What the reel says Heard this one? "The victim's family can't be witnesses." Wrong. The Supreme Court: "related" is not the same as "interested". A witness is interested only when he or she gains something from seeing the accused punished. October 2011, Chiniot: at 7:30 in the morning a mother and her daughters were walking out to pick cotton. The mother and one daughter were shot dead. The only eye-witnesses were the injured daughter and her sister. The defence said they were family. The Supreme Court (February 2023): their evidence cannot be thrown out merely because they are related. An injured eye-witness carries even more weight. Life imprisonment upheld (2023 SCMR 831). --- Educational legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. Speak to a qualified lawyer about your situation. Reading this page does not create a lawyer and client relationship. Review status: Pending advocate review. English: https://failegal.site/media/rishta ยท Urdu: https://failegal.site/media/ur/rishta FAI Media is part of FAI Legal (https://failegal.site), research on Pakistani statutes and judgments. Free to watch and read.