Witness won over: Mere declaration of the prosecution is not enough to abandon such witness. The witness was the only public witness in the recovery proceedings of a klashnikov, others were all police witnesses. As the witness had not appeared before the Court the record did not show that the witness had been won over. If the witness had not supported the prosecution after appearance he could be declared hostile and subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution to find about the truth but such procedure had not been adopted for reasons best known to the prosecutor. The prosecution had thus failed to prove the best evidence by withholding the public witness and an adverse inference could therefore be drawn that in case he was produced he would not have supported the prosecution. Evidence of police witnesses who were in a way the complainant could not solely be accepted to be relied upon to convict the accused especially when the aforesaid public witness had been abandoned without rhyme or reason. Possibility of accused having been implicated with some ulterior motive could not be ruled out. Accused acquitted from the case of recovery of unlicensed klashnikov. Argument that the public witnesses do not come forward to support such like recoveries because of risk to their life and liberty nonetheless cannot absolve the police of their heavy responsibility to produce witness from the public. In the absence of the public witness the evidence of police witnesses pales into insignificance. Appeal allowed. 1996 SCMR 167, Iltaf Hussain PLJ 1996 S.C. 39.
Hostile witness relied upon when he had been declared hostile unjustifiably and his evidence was supported by other circumstances of the case. (DB) NLR 1988 Cr. 522 Abdul Rehman.
Hostile witness does not lose credibility just because he has been permitted to be cross-examined. Merely because the witness has not supported the contents of the FIR his evidence cannot be said to be unreliable. Court to form its own conclusions after considering the whole of the evidence. PLD 1992 Kar. 39. Abdul Razak Rathore.
Hostile witness may be called as a court witness, by the trial court when the prosecution declares him as such in the committing court. Prosecution or defence should not be compelled to produce him (DB) 43 Cr.LJ Mad. 100 In re Peria Guruswami.
Prosecution witness given up: P.Ws. given up because of their close relationship with the accused and for not supporting prosecution evidences. No adverse inference can be drawn. (DB) PLD 1972 Pesh. 27 Iftikhar.
Hostile witness. primary question is not whether a witness is hostile or disinterested but whether a witness is honest. A hostile witness may be a truthful one, while a disinterested witness may be bribed or pressurised to make a false statement. The court should look to the quality of evidence whether probable or consistent. 1979 SCMR 469. Muhammad Sadiq v. Muhammad Sarwar.
Whether hostile? Mere fact that the witness described different venue of his signing recovery memo, cannot make such witness hostile. Evidence of witness cannot be disregarded altogether, however it requires caution (DB) 1971 P.Cr.LJ 602 Fazal.
Undeclared hostile witness: Statement to be ignored without leaving effect on prosecution case. PLJ 1980 SC 207 Niaz Ali.
Some P.Ws. distorting facts and suppressing truth cannot discredit prosecution case if otherwise supported by trustworthy evidence. Statement of such witnesses do not bind prosecution, although such witnesses not declared hostile. (DB) PLD 1963 Pesh. 124 Israr Gul.
Won-over witness: When the Court considers that the witness has been won-over his evidence in Court must be entirely ignored. (PC) AIR 1946 PC 45 Muhammad etc. v. Emperor.
Won-over witness given up by prosecution and produced as defence witness cannot be treated as prosecution witness. PLD 1954 Lah. 21 Akhtar Ali distinguished. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 270 Muhammad Arif.
Given up witnesses as won over not summoned u/S. 540 Cr.P.C. on the request of accused to summon them as court witnesses, as their credibility had become doubtful. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 475, Ali Hussain, etc.
Testimony of hostile witness cannot be altogether left out of consideration, and has to be considered like the evidence of any other witness, but with a caution for the simple reason that he spoke in different tones. It is for the Court to decide in what voice he speaks the truth. In such cases the evidence has to be tested by corroboration from independent sources, and conformity with the remaining evidence. PLD 1962 Lah. 1053, Islam v. State; PLD 1959 Dac 613 Ref. 1996 SCMR 678, State v. Abdul Ghaffar.
Hostile witness is to be treated at par with any other witness. Evidence of such witness cannot be discredited wholly because of being declared hostile. (DB) 1973 P.Cr.LJ 334 Kaloo etc. (FB) Calcutta. AIR 1931 Cal. 401= 35 CWN 731 Prafulla v. Rex. (DB) 1978 P.Cr.LJ 232. Leemon.
Merely declaring witness hostile does not detract from the credibility of such witness. Otherwise the court would be relegating its function to the prosecutor DA or DDA. NLR 1989 Cr. 341. Muhammad Luqman.
(Section 154, Evidence Act). Own witness can be cross-examined when (i) guilty of prevarication, (ii) inconsistent in his statement, (iii) tries to suppress the truth (iv) inimical to the party calling him. In the absence of the above circumstances a party is not entitled to cross-examine his own witness. PLD 1971 Dacca 118. Abdul Qadir etc. v. Abdul Mutlik.
A witness declared hostile by the prosecution loses all evidentiary value for or against the prosecution. (FB) PLD 1963 Pesh. 161 Muhammad Ullah.
The Court should take his entire evidence into consideration and see whether any part of his evidence was worthy of belief in the light of other evidence. (SC) 1972 SCMR 597 Zahid Khan v. Gulsher.
When the name of a witness declared hostile is mentioned in F.I.R. his evidence should not be excluded. (DB) PLD 1968 Lah. 964 Muhammad Aslam.
Hostile witness: The fact that the answers of a witness are in direct conflict with the evidence of other witnesses can never be a reason to hold the witness as hostile and to allow his cross-examination. However, court has unfettered discretion to allow cross-examination of a witness u/s. 154, E.A. 1984 SCMR 560 Muhammad Boota etc.
Hostile witnesses who resiled from their earlier statements, no importance is to be attached to evidence of such witnesses. PLD 1989 SC 20 Habib-ur-Rehman v. Mustafa Abbas.
Resiling from statement. Evidence of witnesses resiling from their statements made  before committing court can be accepted only when corroborated by reliable evidence. (SC) 1975 SCMR 119. Munawar Khan.
Complainant making favourable statement to the accused. High Court held, that the effect of obliging answers was wiped out by answers to court questions Supreme Court held, accused was entitled to benefit of statement of complainant favourable to him. 1988 SCMR 637, Ghazidino.
Concession made by  a witness and speaking in two voices not relied upon. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C. (Lah.) 426 Muhammad Yar etc.
Witness making false concessions in favour of accused cannot be held to be a truthful witness. (DB) PLJ 1987 Cr.C (Lah.) 462 Muhammad Yar etc.
Deliberate attempt by P.Ws. to conceal established facts which created doubt about their veracity, held would require very strong corroboration from unimpeachable source. 1987 SCMR 1264. Kamal Din etc. v. Muhammad Sharif.
P.Ws. resiling from previous statement: It cannot be held as a rule that he is necessarily telling a lie, because on proper scrutiny the latest statement on oath at the trial may be found to be true. PLD 1983 SC 197 Manzoor Ahmed.
Concession by formal witness such as police constable and patwaris deprecated. The departments should take stern action otherwise the infection is bound to spread. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 452. Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Javid.
Obliging concession made by formal witness cannot be of any value. (SC) PLJ 1976 SC 431. Mohabat Khan v. Fateh Muhammad etc.
Making false concessions: A prosecution witness who makes false concession in favour of the accused damages the veracity of his statement. (SC) PLD 1969 SC 127 Habibullah.
P.W. does not become a D.W. A prosecution witness called in defence does not cease to be a witness called for the prosecution. PLD 1954 Lah. 210 Akhtar Ali v. Crown.