ISLAMABAD, Jul 13 (APP):The Supreme Court has stated that mere existence of a cross-version is not a valid ground for deciding a case unless it is supported by the material available on record.
A two-member SC bench headed by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah heard a case where accused Hussain and co-accused had shot Atiqur Rehman at his place. The accused and co-accused presented a cross-version of the occurrence during the investigation, saying the complainant had abducted Hussain and that they had gone to rescue him. Though the police found the cross-version false, the Lahore High Court had granted the relief of post-arrest bail to the accused.
The four-page judgment authored by Justice Mansoor Ali Shah stated that the well-settled principle of law as to the effect of a cross-version of the occurrence involved in a case, at bail stage, was that mere existence of a cross-version was not a valid ground for holding the case one of further inquiry to grant bail under Section 497(2) CrPC unless it was supported by the material available on record of the case and on tentative assessment of that material, the court either found it prima facie true or remained unable to determine even tentatively which one of the two versions was prima facie true.
“It is in the latter situation where the court remains unable to determine even tentatively, which one of the parties is aggressor and which one is aggressed upon, that the case against both parties falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2), CrPC.
“The determination of “the aggressor and the aggressed upon”, whether tentatively at bail stage or finally on conclusion of trial, is relevant to decide culpability of a party for the occurrence as this determination consequently decide which one of the parties was assailant and which one acted in self-defence.
“When a court cannot decide even tentatively, at bail stage, such culpability of a party on the basis of material on record of the case, it leaves this matter for determination on conclusion of the trial after recording the prosecution evidence and the defence evidence, if produced, and gives the benefit of the requisite further inquiry to both parties by granting them bail under Section 497(2) CrPC.
“If the courts start considering every case involving a cross-version as one of further inquiry without any tentative assessment of the worth of the cross-version, it can encourage an accused to concoct a false or fabricated cross-version so as to bring his case within the ambit of further inquiry and thereby get bail.
“That is why the courts are to make a tentative assessment of the material, if any, available on record of the case in support of the cross-version at bail stage and should not readily accept it as a valid ground to treat the case one of further inquiry under Section 497(2) CrPC.”
