Cri, Rev. No.656/2012 Yasir Imran alias Yasir Arafat Muhammad Ashraf, etc. 12) 14.05.2013 Mr. Sajjad Hussain Tarar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mian Muhammad Awais Mazhar, Deputy Prosecutor General. Ch. Nazir Ahmad Kamboh, Advocate for respondent No.1. By means of instant revision petition filed under Sections 435 red with Section 439, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has called into question the vires of order dated 24.05.2012, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malakwal turned down the objection raised by learned defence counsel qua exhibiting the second application/ supplementary statement of the complainant Muhammad Ashraf during the course of recording his statement as PW.1. 2. Facts of the instant case succinctly required for determination of the matter in hand are that Muhammad Arshad (respondent No.1) got lodged crime report bearing FIR No.541, dated 27.09.2011, offence under Section 363, PPC, with Police Station, Malakwal, District Mandi Baha ud Din qua abduction of his nephew namely Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 2 Adil Afzal, aged about eleven years, who had gone to Madrisa Tafheem ul Quran ul Binat for daras and was abducted on his way. After registration of the instant case, another application was moved by the complainant on the same day i.e. on 27.09.2011 while mentioning details of the occurrence as well as names of the accused persons and that the abductee/ deceased was last seen by the prosecution witnesses in the company of the accused persons and as such offence under Sections 367-A, 377, 302, 201, 34, PPC, were also added alongwith offence under Section 363, PPC. Challan was submitted in the court. During the course of trial, while recording examination in chief of Muhammad Ashraf complainant as PW-1, the supplementary statement/application of the complainant was referred by the PW-1 as the same was part of the judicial file. The learned defence counsel raised an objection that the said statement/supplementary statement cannot be made part of earlier statement made by the complainant in terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C. and the same is being hit by Section 162, Cr.P.C. The objection raised by the learned defence counsel was controverted by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the same is being Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 3 explanatory in nature and as such there is no legal bar in exhibiting the same. The learned trial court after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties and perusing the case law referred by both the sides permitted to exhibit the supplementary statement and discarded the objection raised by learned defence counsel while holding that there is no legal bar for exhibiting the subsequent application as it was signed by the complainant which was in fact in explanation of the earlier one. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 24.05.2012 before this Court through criminal revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after lodging crime report at the instance of respondent No.1, the complainant recorded supplementary statement and the said statement cannot be exhibited during the course of recording statement of the complainant as there is bar of Section 162, Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed his reliance on the cases of “Falak Sher alias Sheru Versus The State" (1995 SCMR 1350, "Anees ur Rehman and another Versus The Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 4 State" (PLD 2002 Lahore 110) and “Panjo Versus The State”(1991 P.Cr.L.J. 247). 4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. 5. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard and available record perused. 6. The stance taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is on the same lines as it was argued before the learned trial court. The matter in hand pertains to complex question of law which is not part of day to day proceedings before the learned trial court, therefore, it requires due consideration to resolve the same once for all. Tt is cardinal principal of law that each and every criminal case has its own facts and circumstances and the same has to be decided as per their own merits and facts. Initially the complainant got lodged crime report which was incorporated on prescribed form. The very registration of the crime report is in fact initiation of criminal proceedings. Any statement Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 5 which is in support of the statement made earlier in terms of Section 154, CrP.C. is recorded under Section 161, CrP.C. It would be advantageous to go through the relevant provisions of law, which is reproduced as under:- “161, Examination of witnesses by police (1) Any police-officer making an Investigation under this Chapter or any police-officer not below such rank as the Provincial Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) Such person shall be bound to answer all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty of forfeiture. (3) The police-officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination, under this section, and if he does so he shall make a separate record of statement, of each such person whose statement he records". It is settled principle of law that FIR is the document which is entered under Section 154, Cr.P.C. and the same brings the law into motion and any statement or further statement of the complainant recorded during investigation by the Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 6 police is considered as statement under Section 161, CrP.C. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of "Akhtar Ali and others Versus The State” (2008 SCMR 6), wherein the august Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under:- “---S, 154 & and evidentiary of complainant recorded during investigation after registration of F.LR. ----Evidentiary value stated. FIR. is the document, which is entered under section 154, Cr.P.C. into book maintained at the police station on the application of the complainant. It brings the law into motion. The police under section 156, Cr.P.C. starts investigation of the case. Any statement or further statement of the complainant recorded during investigation by the police would neither be equated with F.LR. nor read as part of it, therefore, subsequent supplementary statement is also considered as statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. which is not signed or thumb- marked". The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in its recent judgment rendered in the case titled “The State and others Versus Abdul Khalig_and others” PLD 2011 Supreme Court 544 has discussed the status of statement which has been signed by the witness in paragraph 25 of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder :- Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 “25. About the argument that statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. should be strictly construed in consonance with section 162, CrP.C. and if those are signed by the witnesses, such is an incurable defect and an illegality which vitiates the statement and it shall not be that previous statement which is contemplated by the above provision, available for confrontation in terms of Article 140 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984 (QSO, 1984). To this extent, we agree with the learned counsel, however, we cannot subscribe to the submissions, that Article 140 of the QSO, 1984 in a criminal matter is totally and conclusively governed and regulated by the provisions of section 162, Cr.P.C. It may be so, when the statement to be confronted has been recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. that the rider of section 162, Cr-P.C. shall apply, but Article 140 of QSO, 1984 being a part of general law of evidence, has its own independent legal efficacy and application and any previous statement of the witness, which may have been made by him in some other judicial, quasi judicial, administrative, executive proceedings or inquiries or before such of the forums or even privately made through some instrument i.e. agreement or an affidavit, can be confronted to him, if relevant, in any criminal case, however, subject to its proof as stated earlier. Such statement can always be used by the defence for impeaching the credibility of a witness under Article 153(3) of the QSO, 1984 as well” In the instant case the facts and circumstances do compel to arrive at the conclusion that it was Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 8 not a statement recorded in a prescribed form, rather the same was through an application which was duly signed by the complainant wherein the texture of the application was the same in addition to the names of the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses whose statements were made basis for coming to the conclusion that the nephew of the complainant/respondent No.1 was seen last time in the company of the accused persons, compelling the local police to take legal action against them and as such the instant case was not only traced rather the challan was submitted before the learned court of competent jurisdiction for its onward transmission for trial in accordance with law. 7. For the foregoing facts and circumstances and keeping in view the dictum of law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cited cases, this Court is in agreement with the learned trial court in holding that there is no legal bar in exhibiting the subsequent application/supplementary statement of the complainant. Resultantly the petition in hand being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed and the impugned order dated 24.05.2012 passed Scanned with CamScannerrl. Rev. No.656/2012 9 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malakwal is justified by facts and law hence same is maintained being in accordance with law. (Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi) Judge Approved for reporting. *Asif* Scanned with CamScanner