مستغیث کا تتیمہ بیان استفاثہ (پراسیکیوشن) کی جانب سے exihibit نہ کرایا جاسکتا ہے

 2021 MLD 408

Supplementary statement of complainant---Value---Accused contended that supplementary statement of complainant could not be exhibited, but the Trial Court overruled the objection---Validity---Supplementary statement had got no sanctity in the eye of law---Value of supplementary statement or further statement was not more than a statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.---In the present case, the Trial Court erred in law while exhibiting the supplementary statement purportedly made by complainant---Said supplementary statement of the complainant was nothing more than a statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C., which could neither be equated with First Information Report (FIR) nor could be construed as an extension thereof---Such statement could not be used for any purpose other than one provided in S.161, Cr.P.C.---Trial Court while exhibiting the supplementary statement of the complainant had committed an error, therefore, the objection raised by the accused was sustainable, which was wrongly overruled by the trial court---Criminal revision petition was accepted and the objection of the defence was sustained.

2021 PCrLJ 504

Ss. 161 & 162---Examination of witnesses by police---Statement to police not to be signed---Use of such statement in evidence---Exhibition of supplementary statement in evidence---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby supplementary statement of complainant was allowed to be exhibited during his examination-in-chief---Validity---Station House Officer was bound to reduce into writing information regarding any cognizable offence rendered by the informer and there was no legal impediment for its exhibition during the trial---Once the crime report was lodged, any information gathered by the complainant at subsequent stage and placed before the Investigating Officer was treated as his statement under S. 161, Cr.P.C. which could be used by the defence for the purpose of contradiction as provided under S. 162, Cr.P.C.---Complainant was always at liberty to make statement before trial court regarding contents of such statement/application as well as his other statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. but there was no provision in the criminal law for independent exhibition of such statement---Trial Court had committed material illegality while passing the impugned order, which was set aside and the revision petition was allowed.