ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has taken exception to a prevalent practice in criminal trials which, it said, defied normal human capability and natural perception, and observed that eyewitness accounts should reflect genuine human observation rather than physically impossible details concerning firearm incidents.
“To expect mathematical precision regarding the number of firearm shots or the exact location of injuries from eyewitnesses exposed to a horrific event is both unnatural and impractical,” observed Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim in a judgement he authored.
Justice Ibrahim was a member of a three-judge SC bench headed by Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, which took up criminal appeals filed by Muhammad Azhar and the state challenging a Sept 13, 2021, Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur, ruling.
The SC, however, rejected the criminal appeal in the 2017 murder case, upholding Muhammad Azhar’s conviction for killing Sakhian Bibi.
Expecting mathematical precision from eyewitnesses exposed to traumatic events is ‘unnatural and impractical’, Justice Ibrahim holds
“In criminal jurisprudence, human behaviour should not be subjected to a fixed formula, nor should every witness be expected to react to, observe or retain events in an identical manner,” the judgement said.
The incident occurred on Jan 11, 2017, when the appellant allegedly entered the victim’s home armed with a .30-bore pistol, seeking the complainant’s uncle in connection with ongoing civil litigation. When the victim said her uncle was not present, the petitioner opened fire, discharging five shots that struck her chest, abdomen and right arm.
The additional sessions judge, Minchinabad, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to death, with Rs200,000 in compensation payable to the legal heirs. The LHC, Bahawalpur, later commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment, prompting both the petitioner’s appeal and the state’s petition for enhancement of the sentence.
“We frequently observe prosecution witnesses deposing with microscopic precision, as if watching events in slow motion, describing the exact trajectory and anatomical landing site of each individual bullet discharged from a firearm,” the judgement observed. It is humanly impossible for an eyewitness exposed to the sudden terror and high stress of a deadly attack to track a high-velocity bullet in mid-air and confirm precisely where each shot strikes the victim’s body, it noted.
The judge emphasised that every individual reacts differently to a sudden traumatic situation: while one person may observe details, another may freeze or lose awareness of the occurrence. In a sudden traumatic event, when multiple gunshots ring out within a few seconds and a mother is murdered in cold blood before her son’s eyes, a minor divergence regarding the exact number of firearm shots or the precise entry point of each bullet is evidence of natural and reasonable human limitations, he observed.
It is common knowledge that most individuals are not frequently exposed to dangerous, life-threatening situations, and the sudden brandishing of a weapon induces an atmosphere of shock and fear, according to the judgement.
In such stressful encounters, human cognitive and perceptual capacities are severely impaired, the judgement said. To substantiate this point, it cited renowned cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, who had stated that a witness confronted by an assailant brandishing a firearm involuntarily fixes their attention almost exclusively on the weapon itself. This cognitive phenomenon, known as “attentional tunnelling”, limits the observer’s capacity to process or recall surrounding details, the judgement said.
Trial courts should bear these limitations in mind when scrutinising eyewitness accounts claiming microscopic accuracy despite the stressful circumstances, Justice Ibrahim observed.
The judgement expected lower courts to assess witnesses in the light of the circumstances of each case, observing that, under the golden principles of criminal jurisprudence, no piece of evidence should be considered in isolation; rather, all evidence should be evaluated cumulatively alongside other available evidence.
Published in Dawn, October 17th, 2026