' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---This revision petition has been filed challenging order dated 30-5- 2008, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islamabad, whereby he acceded the request of learned counsel for the complainant and declared P.W.26 (Riaz Hussain Investigating Officer) as hostile witness, while allowing learned counsel for the complainant to cross examine the said P.W.
2. Brief facts leading to this revision petition, are that respondent No,1 filed a private complaint against the present petitioner and others, under section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, read with sections 302, p 201, 109 197, 167, 193 & 149, P.P.C, before Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, which was transferred to Sessions Court,Islamabad by Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench and trial was under process before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Islamabad, who on 30-5-2008 acceded the request of learned A counsel for the complainant and declared P.W.26 (Riaz Hussain, Investigating Officer) as hostile witness, while allowing learned counsel for the complainant to cross examine the said P.W, hence, this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is illegal and non- speaking, which has been passed without applying judicial mind; that the learned trial Court though stated that some deposition of the P.W.26 is contrary to the record, but he did not mention that contradiction; that the learned trial Court was legally obliged to give reasoning for passing the impugned order, but he didn't. He has further argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It was duty of the Court to point out the contradictions made by the P.W, but he has not done so. He has submitted that the order was passed in hasty manners. Justice rushed is justice crushed. He stated that after announcement of impugned order on 30-5-2008, defence side made request before learned trial Court, to stop the proceedings and give an opportunity to assail the impugned order, but learned trial Court did not care and continued the proceedings. He has further submitted that there was no justification to declare the P.W.26 as hostile, who was prosecution witness. He stressed that the P.W.26 is a main investigator of this case and objection on the part of complainant was without any reason. He again submitted that the findings of learned trial Court, in impugned order, are vague in nature. He stated that the statement of P.W.26 is in line and he has not said anything, which was not favourable for the prosecution. In these circumstances, trial Court was not justified to declare the P.W.-26 as a hostile witness and allow the prosecution to cross-examine, its own witness. He supported his arguments, while relying on the case law referred as 1998 CLC 1148 (Inayat Ullah v. Riaz Ahmad). He has further argued that conditions those are mentioned in the above referred case law, were not available in this case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, has argued that impugned order is very much speaking and legal and that the Court has only to see what illegality has been committed by the learned trial Court. On the face of it, noting is illegal in impugned order. He has further argued that it is a duty of the Court to decide, that if a witness speaks in different tones, which is not favourable for the party, for whom he is appearing. He submitted that the. P.W.26, who is star witness of the prosecution was making totally unfavorable statement for complainant side, therefore, only was to find out the truth, was permission to complainant side to cross examine him and the learned trial Court rightly accepted the request of complainant and declared P.W.-26, as hostile witness. He has argued that it is a triple murder case, wherein F.I.R. Has been lodged promptly, therefore, question of false implication does not arise in this case. He has pointed out that Honourable Chief Justice of this Court, while taking suo motu notice, has already issued direction to expedite the matter, therefore, learned trial Court was fully justified to proceed with the matter on the same day. He support his arguments, while relying on the case laws referred as 1985 PCr.LJ 623 (Karam Illahi v. The State), PLD 1967 Peshawar 80 (The State v. Banaras and others), PLD 1991 Azad J&K 76 (The State v. Khizer Hayat and others) and AIR 1964 SC 1563 (Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat). He has also heavily relied upon the case, law, upon which learned counsel for the petitioner has made reliance. He pointed out the contradictions, in the statement of P.W.26 and record. He further submitted that the power of Court to allow a party to cross examine upon its own witness, is discretionary in nature and the Court has exercised the discretion in judicial manner, because such statement can only be tested through cross examination.
5. I have heard arguments, advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, along with going through the case laws, referred by both sides.
6. As per record, on 27-5-2008, examination in chief of P.W.26 (Riaz Hussain Inspector/S.H.O.) was being recorded and when he made a reference regarding one Sadaf Tasleem Masih in respect of case F.I.R. No,124, which is reproduced as under, learned counsel for the complainant requested to declare the witness/P.W. As hostile, allowing him to cross-examine the P.W:--- "Muhammad Akbar S. I. Also produced one Sadaf Tasleem Masih regarding case F.I.R. No,124, whose PCO shop is near to the place of occurrence and that he was present at the spot, he saw a quarrel of people at road side, while sitting in the shop, however, he got knowledge that some unknown person snatched the vehicle."
7. When learned counsel for the complainant raised objection, the case was adjourned to 29-5- 2008. On which date, no progress could be made due to strike of lawyers and matter was adjourned to 30-5-2008. On the said date, learned trial Court passed the impugned order, which shows that reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to both the parties.
8. A witness is supposed to make his statement for whom he is appearing and if he speaks in different voices, it would be for the Court to decide in what voice he speaks the truth. Determining test in such cases is corroborated from independent source and conformity with the remaining evidence. If such situation arises that a witness makes unfavorable statement, for whom he is appearing, then Articles 150 of Qanun-e-Shandat, 1984 comes for rescue, which is same as section 154 of Evidence Act, 1872, since repealed. The Article 150 of Qanun-e-Shandat is reproduced, as under:-- 'witness.---The Court may, in its discretions, permit the person who calls a witness to put any question to him which might be put in cross examination by the adverse party.
9. A simple perusal of Article 1 ibid, shows that:--
(i) it is not necessary to declare one's own witness as hostile,
(ii) any question can be put to Such a witness which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party, and
(iii) to permit putting such question is within the discretion of the Court.
10. From bare reading of the above provision, it is clear that this Article gives discretionary power to permit the person, who calls the witness, to put any question to him, which might be put in cross- examination by the adverse party. It is established under the law that if a witness is inconsistent with his statement or tries to suppress the truth, the Court has discretion to allow the party calling the said witness, to put questions to him, as may be put in cross-examination, which is only source, under the law, to find out the truth.
11. If a prosecution witness unexpectedly makes statement, which is not favourable to the prosecution, the Court ca not refuse to grant permission to the prosecution, to cross examine the said witness. Main object of this provision is 1 find out the truth, to reach the right conclusion. Power has been allocated to Judge, to adjudge the credibility an veracity of a witness, which is bas requirement to do complete justice. When witness makes statement adversely, which effects the party producing him, it assumes great importance and may be treated by the Court as an admission on the party of party itself, therefore, aggrieved party can make question to that witness in the nature of cross-examination. It is also not necessary that after cross examination the witness loses his credibility. His evidence can be relied upon by either party and Court can come to its own conclusion, after going through the whole evidence. The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discredited wholly and merely, for the reason of his being declared hostile.
12. In this case, at the relevant stage, when examination-in-chief of P.W.26 was being recorded, the complainant side felt that the P.W. Is speaking in a different tone, which is not favourable to the prosecution and learned counsel for the complainant requested that the witness may be declared hostile, with permission to cross examine him. Record shows that learned trial Court has provided ample opportunities to both sides to advance arguments on this point/issue. After due hearing and perusing the record along with going through the relevant case laws, passed the impugned order.
Perusal of examination-in-chief of the P.W.26, clearly depicts that he was making unfavorable statement for the prosecution. Therefore, learned trial Court was fully justified to declare him hostile, while allowing learned counsel for the complainant to cross examine the P.W. I have also been guided, by case laws reported as 1996 SCM R 678 (The State v. Abdul Ghaffar), 1991 M LD 2455 (Mehboob Ali v. The State) and 1973 PCr.LJ 334 (Kaloo & 2 others v. The State and 1996 SCM R 678 (The State v. Abdul Ghaffar).
13. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, justifying the interference of this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Resultantly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed, with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.