2004 P Cr (PLP)

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 302‑‑‑Appreciation‑ of evidence‑‑‑None of the witnesses charged accused for having committed crime, except one and that too in his cross‑examination made by counsel for prosecution after he was declared hostile‑‑‑No doubt a witness who had been declared hostile, would not become unworthy of reliance and his evidence could not be brushed aside if found true and credible, but since said witness had spoken in two different voices and two different tones his evidence had to be assessed with much more care and circumspection‑‑‑No independent or un impeachable evidence being on record which could tend to lend support to the testimony of hostile witness, his testimony in circumstances of case could not be‑considered for holding accused guilty of offence he was charged with‑‑‑F.I.R. in the case having been recorded after preliminary investigation would lose its sanctity and even probative worth because where F.I.R. was recorded after preliminary investigation, it, could neither be treated sacrosanct nor authentic‑‑ Prosecution witnesses neither were natural nor probable nor their presence at the crucial time appealed to reason‑‑‑Alleged confessional statement of accused was neither voluntary nor the Magistrate who recorded same had fulfilled necessary formalities‑‑‑Even otherwise alleged confessional statement being inconsistent with prosecution version could not be held either voluntary or true‑‑‑Not safe to record conviction on such piece of evidence‑‑‑Prosecution having failed to bring home guilt to accused beyond any shadow of doubt, his conviction and sentence were set aside and he was acquitted of charge. Mashal Khan and others v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 478; Baz Gul v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1442; Muhammad Israr Khan v. The State 2002 SD 512; Mst. Robina Bibi v. The State 2001 SCMR 1914; State v. Abdul Ghafar 1996 SCMR 678; Raz Muhammad v. The State PLD 2002 SC 56 ref. (b) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 150‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302‑‑‑Hostile witness‑‑ Witness who had been declared hostile, would not become unworthy of reliance and his evidence could not be brushed aside if found true and credible, but where he had spoken in two different voices and in two different tones his evidence had to be assessed with much greater care and circumspection‑‑‑May be he was telling truth when exonerating accused or may be he was telling truth when charging him‑‑‑Only those voices and tones of witnesses could be considered worthy of reliance which were supported by sources essentially unimpeachable because one tainted piece of evidence could not corroborate another tainted piece of evidence. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 154‑‑‑F.I.R.‑‑‑Authenticity of‑‑‑F.I.R. being the basic document in criminal case was vested with much greater sanctity, but where it was recorded after preliminary investigation, it would lose its sanctity and probate worth and would become a suspect document rather than one giving a natural, spontaneous and straightforward account of occurrence‑‑‑F.I.R. recorded after preliminary investigation, could not be treated either sacrosanct or authentic. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 164‑‑‑Confessional statement‑‑‑Voluntariness of‑‑‑Record should contain a full account of steps taken to ensure the voluntariness of confession because purpose behind preliminaries to recording a confession was not merely to satisfy the Magistrate, but also the Court which would hear the case‑‑‑Where neither the record nor the statement of Magistrate recorded in the Court had shown that accused was given sufficient time to compose himself, it could not be held to be voluntary statement. State v. Muhammad Naseer 1993 SCMR 1822 and Ghulam Muhammad v. The State PLD 1971 Lah. 850 ref. Rajab Ali for the State. Allah Nawaz Khan for the Complainant.