MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKH AIL, J.---- The instant Criminal Revision Petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that supplementary statement/Muqarar Bayan Ex.P/17B may kindly be ordered to be de-exhibited (sic) by sustaining objection of the defence and the order passed by the learned trial Court with regard to its overruling be set aside being patently illegal which is outcome of placing reliance upon a per incuriam order passed by the Hon' ble High Court which would correct the illegality "(sic).
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.04.2019, the complainant Niaz Muhammad (respondent No.2) lodged an FIR No.49 of 2018, with Police Station, Zarghoon Abad , Quetta, under Section 324, P.P.C., alleging therein that on a fateful day at about 01:00 p.m. he received information with regard to attack on his brother namely Bakht Muhammad Ali alias Battu , on which, he rushed to the Civil Hospital, where he found his brother in injured condition, while his brother's friend Niaz Muhammad son of Ghulam Muhammad told him that he, Bakht Muhammad and Janan had gone to a garden for taking bath, but due to non-availability of electricity they while sitting were waiting there, meanwhile, a young-man of 20/22 years came in a car, who after alighting made firing upon them, due to which a bullet hit his brother Bakht Muhammad.
3. After completion of investigation, challan of the case was submitted before the trial court, whereby , a charge framed and read over to the accused, was pleaded not guilty . Thereafter , the complainant (respondent No.2) stepped into witness box as PW-1, who recorded his statement and tendered his Fard-e-Bayan as Ex.P/1-A, and also got exhibited his supplementary statement/ Muqrar Bayan as Ex.P/1-B. During course an objection was raised by the learned defence counsel that the Supplementary Statement/ Muqarar Bayan cannot be exhibited, but the learned trial court while relying on the reported judgment (2014 MLD 337), overruled the objection of the defence counsel, hence this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also gone through the available record with their able assistance.
The learned counsel for the petitioner maintained that the supplementary statement of the complainant cannot be exhibited, as the same was having no value other than a statement recorded unde r Section 161, Cr.P.C, therefore, urged for de-exhibiting the supplementary statement EX-P/1-B. The learned counsel relied upon the following judgments.
Anees-ur -Rehman and another v . The State (PLD 2002 Lahore 10 ).
Muhammad Saeed Mehdi v . The State (PLD 2002 Lahore 124 ).
The State v . Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 201 1 Supreme Court 554).
Conversely , the learned Additional Prosecutor General stated that the legality and admissibility of the supplementary statement would be determined by the trial court, while finally adjudicating the matter , as such, the petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4 (sic) Before going into merit of the case, it has been observed that the trial courts, on most of the occasions as a routine practice, whenever an objection is being raised by either of the parties at the time of recording evidence, the trial court instead of deciding the same, then and there, reserves the objection to decide it at the time of final adjudication of the case. The trial court is bound to decide the objection, instantly , when it is raised by the party/parties, and must not reserve or defer the same till final adjudication of the pending lis. This issue has also been noticed and resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment titled as 'Hayatullah v. The State' (2018 SCMR page 2092 ), and it is instructive to reproduce the relevant passage for future reference: "We have also observed that although sometime objection was raised by either party regarding the inadmissibility of such piece of evidence but the court while admitting the evidence at that time reserves the question of law as to its admissibility till the end of the trial and while delivering the judgment no such question of admissibility is usually decided. It is the duty of the trial court to decide the objection then and there and not to defer the same till the end of the trial."
5. As far as the legality of supplementary statement of the complainant is concerned, it is suffice to observe here that the same has got no sanctity in the eye of law in view of the principle laid down by the Superior Courts from time to time. In the case of Noor Mohammad's case (2008 SCMR 1556 ), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during investigation of the police is neither equivalent to the FIR nor to be read as part of the same. The relevant passage wherefrom is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience, which reads: "6. It is an admitted fact that the complainant did not mention the name of the petitioner and co-accused in the F.I.R. but later on implicated them in the commission of offence through supplementary statement recorded before the Investigating Officer on the same day. The complainant has failed to disclose as to how he came to know the name of the accused. In case the contents of the first information report and supplementary statement are put in a juxtaposition then it is crystal clear that the complainant had taken altogether U-Turn from his previous stand. This fact makes it a case of further inquiry under section 497, Cr.P.C. Moreover , since name of petitioner and co- accused were not mentioned in the F.I.R. and was mentioned in the supplementary statement by complainant which fact also brings the case within the ambit of further inquiry . It was held by this Court in the case of Falak Sher alias Sheru v. The State 1995 SCMR 1350 that F.I.R. is the document which is entered into book maintained at the police station at the complaint of informant and brings the law into motion whereby police starts investigation of the case under section 156, Cr. P. C. Any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by police would neither be equipped with First Information Report nor read as part of it. Similarly it was held by this Court in the case of Khalid Javed and another v. The State 2003 SCMR 1419 that any statement or further statement of the first informant recorded during the investigation by the police would neither be equated with F.I.R. nor read as part of the same and the value of the supplementary statement, therefore, will be determined keeping in view the principles enunciated by the superior Courts in this behalf "
In another case reported as Mohammad Irfan v. The State (2012 PCr.LJ 625) Hon'ble Lahore High Court held as under: "It has been held time and again by this court as well as by the apex Court of the country that a supplementary statement is a recent innovation, not recognized by law, which has been devised by incompetent, incapable and dishonest police officers/I.Os. to cut short the process of investigation without bearing in mind that such a short cut is generally destructive to the case of the prosecution. This practice of manufacturing and fabricating the supplementary statements continues unabated which has to be checked by some drastic measures. Till the time, the police high-ups and the authorities at the helm of affairs wake up and perceive horrendous consequences caused by such innovation, the unbridled powers enjoyed by the police would do more harm instead of doing good to the oppressed."
6. The legal question raised by the learne d counsel for the petitioner that the supp lementary statement cannot be exhibited. In view of above quoted principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also observed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, the value of supplementary statement or further statement is not more than a statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. The learned trial court while recording the statement of the complainant exhibited his supplementary statement recorded on 01st May 2018. In the case in hand the learned trial Judge erred in law, while exhibiting the supplementary statement purportedly made by complainant Niaz Muhammad (PW-1). The said supplementary statement of the complainant was nothing more than a statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. which can neither be equated with First Information Report (F.I.R) nor can be construed as an extension thereof. Such statement cannot be used for any purpose other than one provided in section 161, Cr.P.C.
Reliance in this behalf is placed on Muhammad Safdar and others v. The State (2016 PCr.LJ 220). The learned trial Judge while exhibiting the supplemen tary statement of the complainant has committed an error, therefore, the objection raised by the defence counsel was sustainable, which was wrongly overruled by the trial court.
7. The learned trial court while exhibiting the supplementary statement of the complainant, relied upon the judgment reported in 2014 MLD 337, but on going through the same judgment, it has mainly relied on the judgments Falak Sher alias Sheru v. The State (1995. SCMR 1350) , Anees-ur-Rehman and another v. The State (PLD 2002 Lah. 110) and Panjo v. The State (1991 PCr.LJ 247). However , the perusal of these judgments reveals that the same are not relating to the issue of exhibiting a supplementary statement, thus, the judgments relied in the above referred judgment are not supportive, therefore, the same being per incuriam, may not be relied by the courts.
In view of above discussion, it is held that the learned trial court has wrongly exhibited the supplementary statement of the complainant, which was nothing more than a statement recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C, therefore, the instant criminal revision petition is accepted and the objection of the learned defence counsel is sustained, consequently the exhibit EX-P/1-B is hereby ordered to be discarded from the statement of complainant, while the trial court would be at liberty to scrutinize the same after recording the statement of Investigating Officer or at final adjudication of the case.
The petition stands accepted in the above terms.