' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 27.9.2016, whereby his application for obtaining copies of the statements of Mudassar Sharif (complainant) and Mst.
Sobia accused has been rejected by the learned trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura) during his trial in respect of case-F.I.R. No,1079/14, dated 27.11.2014, under sections 302/34, 109, P.P.C., registered at Police Station B-Division Sheikhupura.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, realizing bizarreness of the prayer as regards statement of Mst. Sobia accused, wishes to withdraw this petition to the said extent. Dismissed, as prayed for.
3. So far as the other part of the petitioner's contention is concerned, it related to statement of the complainant, statedly recorded by the investigating officer on 3.12.2014.
4. Ali Raza (petitioner) is an accused of case-F.I.R. No,1074/14 (supra), whose trial is pending adjudication before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura. He thought that the complainant's statement, as recorded by the investigating officer vide case-diary dated 3.12.2014 was crucial to his case, therefore, he moved an application to get a copy thereof, which was dismissed by the learned trial court through the impugned order. Hence, the instant petition.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the police has the power to examine persons acquainted with the facts and circumstances and not necessarily only those, who had supported the prosecution version. It goes without saying that statements of all persons examined by the police in connection with the case are to be supplied irrespective of the fact, whether they have or have not been cited by the prosecution as witnesses.
It is immaterial whether the investigating officer did or did not choose to say that he was recording the statements under section 161 A Cr.P.C. The accused cannot be deprived of the right of having access to statements made by witnesses before the police on the hyper technicality that the investigating officer did not describe them as statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. All statements made before the police, whether recorded under section 161 Cr.P.0 or not, should be supplied to the accused before the trial. In an identical case Ghulam Muhammad v. The State (1985 SCM R 1442), the , Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan remanded the case, while hearing an appeal, for enabling the appellant to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his statement, separately recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and for examining the DSP, if necessary, for proving the correctness or otherwise of its contents. another case, Khalid Pervez v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1824, this court observed that the petitioners/accused were entitled to copies of the statements of all the persons recorded during investigation, whether the same supported the. case of prosecution or of the defence, and whether they were cited as PWs or not, provided such statements were recorded during investigation separately under section 161 Cr.P.C. or in Zimnies or under section 172 Cr.P.C. in body of the case-diaries.
6. Learned trial court ought to have supplied a copy of the statement of the complainant, if it had been recorded by the investigating officer vide case- diary dated 3.12.2014. The accused must have access to every statement recorded by the investigating officer, either under section 161, Cr.P.C. separately or having embodied it in a case-diary prepared under section 172, Cr.P.C.
7. This revision petition is, thus, allowed in terms that the petitioner would be provided with a copy of the statement (supra) of Mitdassar Sharif (complainant), so as to enable Mtn to defend himself appropriately.