Examination of witness by police

Testimony of a witness whose statement had not been recorded during the investigation could not be credible one.

Said inordinate delay created doubts regarding the accuracy and credibility of said witnesses.

Witness, whose statement had not been recorded by the Investigating Officer, would not be considered as worthy of credence, but the court was empowered to record the testimony of any person, whether his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. or 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded or not.

Examination of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C., was a safeguard provided to an accused to ward off the possibilities of shifting positions by the prosecution witness

To avoid prejudice to accused, such time tested arrangements were to be jealously guarded.

Examination of witness intended to be produced against accused under S. 161, Cr.P.C. and supply of copies thereof are fundamental safeguards for accused to enable him to confront charges so as to defend himself in meaningful and effective way rather than to take him by surprise in helpless manner

Said safeguards cannot be dispensed with even in case of close blood relationship inter se witnesses and accused.

If there appeared any delay in recording of statement under S.161, Cr.P.C. no adverse inference to be drawn against testimony of the witnesses on that count alone, more particularly when names of witnesses were mentioned in promptly lodged FIR record showed that despite efforts witnesses avoided or were away

Any irregularity in the investigation by Investigating Officer, was of no help for accused to claim any benefit.

Statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C, were not admissible in evidence as per provisions contained under Art.38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 but once a statement recorded by Police themselves, bringing on record prima facie detachment of an accused of commission of the offence in question, then same at least could be considered for the purpose of bail keeping in view the attending circumstances.