' Through this petition the petitioners have called in question the order dated 10-9-2003 handed down by Mr. Wajahat Hussain Khan, Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan whereby the learned Court declined to provide copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation of case F.1.R. No,80 of 2003, recorded at Police Station Rukanpur for an offence under sections 302/34, P.P.C.
2. The relevant facts are; that the above noted F.I.R. Was registered at the instance of Muhammad Anwar respondent No,1 . After investigation the case was cancelled, therefore, Muhammad Anwar- first informant filed a complaint against the petitioners and one Muhammad Jamil for an offence under sections 302/34, P.P.C. After inquiry the respondents in the complaint were summoned to face trial and charge was framed against them. On 6-9-2003 the petitioners applied for supply of statements of P.Ws. Recorded during investigation of the F.I.R. relating to same occurrence. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioners on the short ground that this being a complaint case the requisite copies had already been furnished to the petitioners under subsection (2) of section 265-C, Cr.P.C.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners were entitled to the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation of the F.I.R. Which related to the same occurrence as the same qualified as previous statements. The learned counsel has also referred to the reply submitted by respondent No,1 before the learned trial Court wherein furnishing of copies was not opposed by respondent No:1 in emphatic terms and in lieu of copies it was stated that the copies ' demanded by the petitioners were not in the possession of respondent No,1 and were available with the record of the F.I.R. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Muhammad Riaz and others v. The State (PLD 2003 Lahore 290). The learned counsel for respondent No,1 has vehemently 'opposed this petition and has argued that it was a complained case and the copies which were required to be furnished had already been given to them in accordance with section 265(2), Cr.P.C. It has further been argued that the application was filed with the sole purpose of causing delay in conclusion of trial as is evident from the fact that the application was filed after the framing of charge, while copies are required to be furnished to the accused seven days prior to the framing of charge.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. A line has to be drawn between the complaint cases directly instituted in the Court and those complaint cases in which the complainant had first approached the police, F.I.R. Was registered and during investigation the statements of the P.Ws. Were recorded and, thereafter, feeling dissatisfied with the investigation of the case or for any other reason the complainant chose to file a complaint about the same occurrence before the Court. In the cases directly instituted upon complaint the question of furnishing copies of the statement during investigation would not arise. In the case in hand, admittedly, the complainant had approached the police, F.I.R. Was registered and statements of P.Ws. Were recorded during investigation. The whole purpose of trial/inquiry is to find the truth to impart justice. Cross-examination is strongest tool to achieve the object. It is very important that the accused should have the facility of cross-examining the complainant and his witnesses in as complete a manner as possible. The object of cross-examination with the assistance of the earlier statement made by the complainant or this witnesses is to protect the accused against untruthful witnesses. Subsection (2) of section 265-C, Cr.P.C. Is not to be read in isolation. This section is part and parcel of Chapter 22-A of Criminal Procedure Code relating to trials before the High Court and before the Court of Sessions and is to be read along with other relevant provisions of law relating to trial cases, specially, section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code and Article 140 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (Section 145 of Evidence Act 1872). It is clear from the language of section 162 of the Code that if a person is examined by police during the course of an investigation under Chapter 14 of the Code and if that person is called as a witness for the prosecution, the accused has a right to request the Court to refer to such writing and for an order that the accused be furnished with a copy of the statement of such person in order that any part of such statement if duly approved, may be used to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Article 140 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order. It is immaterial in such cases whether the case was challaned by the police or was inquired into by the Court in complaint.
5. The important fact which makes the applicability of section 162 of the Code is that the statement was recorded by the police officer in the course of any investigation. It was observed by the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottays and othents v. Emperor (AIR 1947 Privy Council 67) that the right to be furnished with copies of statements made by witnesses to a police officer given to an accused person by section 162 is a very valuable one and often provides important material for cross- examination of the prosecution witnesses. However, slender the material for cross-examination may seem to be, it is difficult to gauge its possible effect. Minor inconsistencies in his several statements may not embarrass a truthful witness, but may cause an untruthful witness to prevaricate, and may lead to the ultimate break-down of the whole of his evidence.
6. The commitment proceedings were done away with by the amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, interest of the accused facing trial on a charge of murder has been protected by the provisions of section 265-C which requires copies of the evidence sought to be produced against them be given to them seven days prior to the commencement of the trial. This provision was inserted so that the accused may know, before they were sent up to stand their trial in a charge punishable with death or imprisonment for life, as to what evidence they shall have to meet at the trial. The provisions of subsection (2) of section 265- C, Cr.P.C. Are to be construed liberally to mean that copies of evidence oral or documentary should be made available to the accused in a private complaint before the commencement of the trial. A reference can be made to Muzaffar Khan v. The State (1977 PCr.LJ 937) wherein, in somewhat similar cintcumstances, the following observation was made: "I feel inclined to the view that the disputed statement falls within the purview of section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When a person is examined by the police during course of investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure and is subsequently called as a witness for the prosecution, the accused has the right, irrespective of the fact that the case is tried on a private complaint or a police challan, to ask the Court for a copy of his statement so that any part of such statement, if duly proved, may be used to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Evidence Act".
' Similar view was expressed by this Court in Aziz-ur-Rehman v. The State (PLD 1987 Lahore 285).
7. As far as the point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the application seeking supply of copies was filed after some delay is concerned, suffice it to say, heavens may fall let justice be done.
8. The upshot of the whole discussion is that I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court in the light of the observations made in this judgment would direct the concerned police officer to furnish copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation of case F.I.R. No,80 of 2003 registered at Police Station Rukan Pur at the instance of respondent No,1 .