Counter version

  1. Counter version — Whenever a person lodges information the police is bound to record it notwithstanding the fact that a case has already been registered. Even if a person wants to give a counter version of the case a case can be registered provided that the information prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If one set of accused has already been nominated in the F.I.R. another report alleging that another set of accused persons was responsible for the offence can also be registered. Muhammad Afzal v. Najeeb Ali 1996 SCR 66 (A)
  2. Where there are two counter versions or two counter challans and it is not ascertained as to which of the party is aggressor or at fault the matter is of further inquiry and accused become entitled to grant of bail under sub-section 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. — However, mere filing the counter version or a counter challan by the prosecution would not justify allowing the bail to accused person in all cases — Every case has to be decided in view of its peculiar circumstances keeping in view the facts involved in both the cases. Muhammad Idrees Kiani  v. The State and another 2003 SCR 511 (C) 1992 SCR 279, 1981 P.Cr.L.J 704, 1981 P.Cr.LJ 1158 rel.
  3. A counter version was pleaded by the convict-appellant — Counter version was adopted from the very beginning by moving an application before the Police — He was referred to doctor and examined — He was found injured — Medical report is also on the record — The Investigating Officer supported the version of the appellant — He deposed that the accused was injured and was referred to hospital — It was the legal obligation of Investigating Officer to consider and probe into counter version — It is most unfortunate that he neither considered nor given any attention to the version of the convict-appellant — Counter version was adopted by the convict-appellant from the very beginning — According to him the attack was opened by the complaint party — He took this version before the Investigating Officer — The Police Officers stated before the Court that this version was adopted by the accused-appellant but they did not probe into the matter — They neither declared his version false nor gave any finding about this version — When the convict-appellant stated his version before the Police why the Police did not probe into the counter version — It reveals that the Police conducted investigating ex parte — It is well settled principle of law that where a version has been adopted by an accused person and when it is not possible for the Court to hold that version given by the accused was not absolutely false, then the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. M. YOUSAF v. TARIQ MEHMOOD 2008 SCR 1 (B & D) 1993 SCMR 208 rel.
error: Content is protected !!