SC questions ‘lofty expectations’ in criminal cases

The Supreme Court has questioned the "lofty expectations" placed on eyewitness accounts in criminal trials, arguing that such demands are unrealistic and unfeasible. Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim, writing for a three-judge bench, stated that eyewitnesses should provide natural, human observations rather than focusing on precise details like the number of firearm shots or the exact location of injuries.

In a 2017 murder case, the court upheld Muhammad Azhar's conviction for killing Sakhian Bibi, rejecting the appeal from the criminal and the state. The incident involved the petitioner allegedly entering the victim's home with a .30-bore pistol, firing five shots that struck the victim in the chest, abdomen, and right arm. The additional sessions judge at Minchinabad initially sentenced the petitioner to death, which was later commuted to life imprisonment by the Lahore High Court.

The Supreme Court emphasized that human cognition and perception are significantly impaired during traumatic events, citing cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus' theory of "attentional tunnelling." This phenomenon causes witnesses to focus almost exclusively on the weapon during a sudden, stressful situation, limiting their ability to process or recall other details.

The court urged trial courts to consider these limitations when evaluating eyewitness testimony. It stressed that no single piece of evidence should be evaluated in isolation but should be assessed in context alongside other evidence.