Site plan is not evidence and officer preparing site plan not saying a word in trial as to on whose pointation he prepared it. Held, no reliance can be place on it. PLD 1980 SC 185 Gul Mir.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence. PLD 1992 S.C. 211, Shamim Akhtar v. Faiz Akhtar etc.
Site plan by itself is not substantive piece of evidence so as to contradict ocular evidence. Site plans are prepared to appreciate or explain evidence on record. PLJ 1998 SC 1398 Sardar Khan etc.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence but it definitely has an evidentiary value regarding the matters which are the result of the observations of the I.O. and are not entered therein at the instance of the eye-witnesses. (D.B) PLD 1994 Pesh 176, Zarif Khan.
Site plan not substantive evidence, and cannot be used to contradict or discredit unchallenged evidence of witnesses. (DB) PLD 1985 Lah. 534. Abdul Aziz PLJ 1985 Cr. C. (Lah.) 446.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence, but is not to be discarded altogether. It reflects the prosecution story as it is prepared of the pointation of witnesses. PLJ 1983 Cr. C. (Pesh.) 67. Mati-ul-Haq etc.
Site plan is not substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to discard the evidence of a witness unless he was confronted with the site-plan. 1996 SCMR 908, Muhammad Iqbal etc v. Muhammad Akram etc.
Site plan; position of P.Ws not indicated it does not mean that they did not see the occurrence. (SC) NLR 1981 Cr. 14 Ali Sher. PLD 1980 SC 317 = PLJ 1980 SC 487.
Site plan, no mention of P. Ws. on whose pointation site plan was prepared . no evidentiary value attached to such site plan. PLJ 1980 SC 293 Gul Mir.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon for locating the exact spot of persons present there. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 454 Fazal Anwar. PLJ 1982 Cr. C. (Pesh.) 382.
Site plan. Information derived from witness during police investigation and recorded in the index to a map must be proved by the witness concerned and not be the Investigating Officer, as it offends against section 162. Cr.P.C. (DB) AIR 1944 Cal. 339 Akanda.
Site plan not showing place from where empty cartridge recovered. Place not shown to the person preparing the site plan. Recovery held doubtful. (DB) 1973 P.Cr. LJ 675. Saeed.
Site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence and cannot be used to contradict or discredit unchallenged evidence of prosecution eye-witnesses. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 234. Taj Muhammad v. Muhammad Yousaf etc.
Site plan, witness. Eye-witnesses showing to be nearer to the place of occurrence than the police record shows, disbelieved. (SC) PLD 1965 SC 151. Abdul Razik.
Site plan-Position of eye-witness. Omission to indicate in site plan position of eye-witness at the time of the occurrence, reflects on the possibility of such witnesses not being present at all at the time of occurrence. (SC) 1968 SCMR 161. Mehr Ali. (DB) 1978 P.Cr. LJ 24 Khan.
Showing position of witness in site plan is not obligatory either under Cr. P.C. or Police Rules. Site Plan is only a supporting document to understand the location of the incident. (D.B) PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Q) 1527, Khawand Bux etc.
Distances indicated in site plan ruling out scorching. The witnesses sticking to the distances indicated in the site plan, such testimony, held, doubtful PLJ 1983 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 67. Mati-ul-Haq. etc.
Site plan and inquest report regarding recovery of dead body of deceased not corroborated by trace of dragging or trail of blood anywhere near the spot. Prosecution case. held, doubtful. 1985 SCMR 843. Muhammad Akram.
Site plan can be referred to for determining the respective positions of the accused and the deceased when the site plan is prepared by a draftsman on the pointation of eye-witnesses. 1997 SCMR 89, Muhammad Ahmed.
Conflict of medical evidence with site plan ignored in the presence of direct and consistent ocular account, sentence maintained. (DB) PLD 1999 Pesh. 1 Niaz Ali.