This revision petition has been directed against order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the learned Anti-T errorism Court-III, Lahore whereby supplementary statement of the complainant was exhibited during his examination-in- chief as PW -1.
2. Succinctly , the facts of the case are that respondent No.2/complainant got lodged FIR No.240 dated 12.03.2019, in respect of offences under sections 363, 365-A, 302, 34, 201 and 436-B, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Hair, Lahore, against the petitioner and others regarding abduction for ransom, murder and burning the dead body of deceased Ali Hassan aged 11/12 years, a son of the complainant. During trial, the complainant was examined as (PW-1) in examination-inchief, the trial court exhibited his supplementary statement as 'Ex.PB' by over-ruling the legal objection raised by learned defence counsel vide impugned order dated 26.11.2019, which is under attack in this revision petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner , learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Deputy Prosecution General appearing for the State.
4.Under section 154, Cr.P.C., the Station House Officer is bound to reduce into writing information regarding any cognizable offence rendered by the informer 'and there is no legal impediment for its exhibition during the trial However , once the crime report is lodged, any information gathered by the complainant at subsequent stage and placed before the Investigating Officer, shall be treated as his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., which may be used by the defence for the purpose of contradiction as provided under section 162, Cr.P.C. The complainant is always at liberty to make statement before the trial Court regarding contents of such statement/application as well as his other statements recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. but there is no provision in the criminal law for independent exhibition of such statement. Reliance is placed on cases reported as Naseer Haider and another v.
The State and 2 others (2008 YLR 1092 ) and Muhammad Safdar and others v. The State and others (2016 PCr.LJ 220). The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 reported as Yasir Imran alias Yasir Arafat v, Muhammad Ashraf and others (2014 MLD 337), was authored by a learned Single Bench of this Court, which has no binding ef fect upon a Division Bench.
5. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the trial Court committed material illegality while passing the impugned order in exhibiting supplementary statement of the complainant, which cannot be perpetuated by the Court.
Resultantly , the criminal revision petition in hand is allowed and impugned order dated 26.11.2019 is hereby set aside.