[Sections 161 and 162, Cr.P.C.]
The mere fact that absolutely disinterested witnesses did not inform the police at the earliest opportunity that they had seen something connected with the murder, but waited for a day before they informed the police is no ground for rejecting their evidence. Witnesses are unwilling to involve themselves in enmity with the accused, their friends and in great inconvenience. (DB) 43 Cr.LJ 346 Re Boya Chinna. 1978 P Cr. LJ 1. Wazeer etc.
Statement u/S. 161 recorded with delay without any plausible explanation casts serious suspicion on the credibility of witnesses, such evidence not relied upon. 1998 SCMR 70, Muhammad Khan v. Maula Bakhsh.
One night's delay. Alleged eye-witnesses although claiming to have seen whole affairs yet not reporting matter to police and keeping silent for whole night of incident and coming to scene next morning when police recorded their statements. Ocular evidence not confidence inspiring. (DB) 1974 PCr.LJ 400 Gul Mohammad.
One day's delay in examination of a witness by the police would not throw doubt on the eye-witness being present at the spot. (SC) 1968 SCMR 161 Mehar Ali etc.
24 hours' delay. Witness, a friend of the deceased not disclosing to anyone for 4 hours that he saw murder. Such evidence not relied on. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 223 Mohammad Sadiq.
48 hours' delay. Witness examined by the police 48 hours after the occurrence. Veracity of such eye-witness account doubted. (DB) PLD 1960 Kar. 697 Qabil Shah.
2 days' delay in examination of eye-witness after the occurrence is enough to look askance at his evidence. Such a person is not a witness of truth. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Kar.) 244 Jalal.
Statement to police after 2 days by the persons who were not mentioned as the witnesses by the prosecutrix. held, such persons could not be treated as eye-witnesses. (FSC) 1982 PSC 1217 Muzaffar Khan.
4 days' delay. Statement of an eye-witness recorded by police 4 days after the incident ruled out of consideration by the Court. (DB) PLD 1965 Kar. 76 Badhu.
4 days' delay in recording statement by the police when the PW was running a shop near the police station and also going with the first informant to the police station. Statement not relied upon. (SC) 1976 SCMR 236 Sahib Gul v. Ziarat Gul.
7 days' delay in examination of a witness by the police does not prove such witness to be a false one. Such delay does reflect upon likelihood of his being a genuine witness. Safer course would be not to rely upon such a witness. (DB) PLJ 1973 Kar. 304 Muhammad Haroon.
Police recorded the statement of a prosecution witness 22 days after the occurrence in a murder case. No explanation for this inordinate delay given. Held, a case of further inquiry. Bail allowed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C (Kar.) 521, Abdul Ghani.
One month's delay in recording statement of a witness mentioned in FIR. Held, delay in recording statement by the police did not make the statement unreliable, 1988 SCMR 39 Hamid Javed.
Statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after delay without explanation for such delay is to be ruled out of consideration. 1993 SCMR (S.APP.C.) 550, Syed Saeed Mohammad Shah.
Gross and unexplained delay (11 days) in recording statements of P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. Ocular evidence not fit to be accepted without strong corroboration. (DB) 1976 P.Cr.LJ 34 Wahid Bakhsh. PLD 1978 Pesh. 38 Asfandyar Wali.
Eye-witness appearing before police after 10 days, of occurrence no explanation for keeping silent for such a long period. Held, no reliance can be placed on such eye-witnesses. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Lah.) 20 Zahere-ud-Din.
14 days' delay held to be immaterial when no question asked to the Investigating Officer about it. At the most it is a suspicious circumstance. 1975 P Cr.LJ 1304 Pinyo etc.
15 days after the occurrence, a witness was examined by the police and no explanation offered for the delay. Held: not safe to rely on such evidence. (DB) 1976 P Cr.LJ 249 Allah Din etc.
Statements of witnesses recorded 15 or 20 days after occurrence, held reliability of such witnesses is always questionable. 1984 SCMR 930. Mohammad Iqbal.
40 days after the occurrence a witness was examined by the police. Supreme Court allowed bail to a life convict pending appeal in High Court. (SC) 1972 SCMR 683 Elahi Bakhsh.
1« month's delay. Witnesses examined by the police after lapse of one and a half months. Testimony of such witnesses is to be disregarded. (DB) 1974 P Cr.LJ 391 Muhammad Rafiq etc. PLJ 1973 Lah. 257.
One and three quarter month's delay, in recording statement of a witness under section 161, Cr.P.C. did not make the statement of the PW unreliable as the police asked him to get himself examined by a doctor first. The PW went to the hospital and then to his village. (DB) 1975 P Cr.LJ 1188 Alam Sher etc.
2 months after the occurrence a witness when examined by the police, such witness was not believed without explanation for delay. PLD 1968 Lah. 49 Amir.
Form of statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by police in whatever form; questions and answers or narrative or in condensed form or summerised statements are covered u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. and can be used to confront the witness u/S. 140 Qanune Shahadat Order. PLJ 1995 Cr.C (Lah) 257, Abdul Majeed.