Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: Art, 150

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art. 150---Hostile witness---Scope---Petitioner assailed order of Trial Court whereby it declined to declare the eye-witness as hostile witness---Validity---On perusal of the impugned order, it appeared that the complainant and prosecutor made an oral request to declare the eyewitness, as hostile on the ground that the said witness in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., implicated accused/respondents No. 1 and 2, but when he appeared before the Court, he only implicated one accused in his statement, which was contrary to what he had deposed in his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---As per law, it was the decision of the Court to permit the party who called a witness to put any question to him, and it was not the right of such party---Such discretion was to be exercised with due caution and attention, keeping in view the interests of both parties so that no one would be prejudiced from the order of the Court---In order to make a party entitled to invoke Art. 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, it is necessary to establish that the witness is guilty of equivocation, or that he is varying in his statement, or trying to suppress the truth, or that he bears animosity towards the party who called him---In the absence of any act on the part of the witness of the said nature, a party is not entitled to cross-examine its witness to impeach his credibility---Record showed that the eyewitness fully endorsed the occurrence and did not deviate from the story as narrated by the prosecution; however, he gave the specific role to one accused and had not given any role to the other accused/respondents---Thus, such witness did not come in the category of a hostile witness; however, he was an unfavourable witness of the prosecution---Eye-witness, in an unguarded moment, deposed something which was unfavourable to the prosecution; however, no such material existed on the record showing that the witness was deliberately suppressing the truth or had changed his loyalty and the intention was clear---In the absence of all these circumstances, the discretion to allow the party to re-examine its own witness could not be allowed---No improvement, deviation, accumulation or suppression of material facts in the statement of eye-witness had been seen, adverse to the interest of complainant and inconsistent with his previous statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C., to declare him hostile---Therefore, the instant petition had no force to warrant interference by High Court as there was no impropriety, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the Trial Court---Petition was dismissed accordingly.