GHUALM MUHAMMAD vs The STATE
This matter arises from a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan wherein the appellant was convicted. During the proceedings, the Court discovered a police statement of the complainant recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Lahore, a copy of which had allegedly not been supplied to the appellant, and the trial court had mistakenly referenced it as the FIR during cross-examination. The core legal question concerns the effect of denying the accused access to a previous police statement of a witness for cross-examination. The Supreme Court held that the failure to supply the statement and denying the appellant the right to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his previous statement constitutes a gross violation of law, with prejudice necessarily presumed. The Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remanded the matter back for the appellant to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the complainant with respect to that statement, examine the DSP, record the accused statement, allow defense evidence, and decide the case afresh. The key principle laid down is that the denial of a previous police statement to an accused for cross-examination causes presumptive prejudice, necessitating a retrial or remand for proper procedural compliance.
- Does the failure to supply a previous police statement of a witness to the accused constitute a violation of law?
- Whether prejudice is presumed when an accused is denied the right to cross-examine a witness with regard to a previous statement?
- What is the appropriate remedy when an appellate court finds that the accused was denied the right to cross-examine a witness based on a withheld police statement?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--While the case was being argued, we came across a police statement of complainant Muhammad Aslam Sethi (P.W.5) which was allegedly recorded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Lahore, on 21st of March, 1977, a copy of which apparently had not been supplied to the appellant as required under the law. The learned counsel for the appellant was also not in a position to affirm or deny its non-supply to the appellant.
2. The complainant was cross-examined with reference to some police statement, but the trial Court mistook it to be the F.I.R. Accordingly, we summoned the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, and examined him today and he confirmed having correctly recorded the; statement There is no gainsaying that the appellant has been denied) the right to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his previous statement. This is a gross violation of the law and prejudice must be presumed to have been caused.
3. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and remand the case for enabling the appellant to cross-examine the complainant with regard to his statement, and for examining the Deputy Superintendent of Police, if necessary, for proving the correctness or otherwise of its contents. After this exercise the accused should be examined and an opportunity should be given to him to lead defence, if any, and then to decide the case afresh on merits. Copy of the statement has been supplied to the appellant's counsel. As the case is old, it would be worthwhile for the High Court to consider its expeditious disposal.
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhammad Akbar vs State 2022 PHC 386, 2024 YLR 61
- Malik Zafar Iqbal and 5 others vs The State and another 2022 P Cr. L J 421
- Malik Zafar Iqbal etc vs The State etc 2021 LHC 5961
- RAFIQ AHMAD Versus SAEED SHAH 1997 MLD 2208
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus THE STATE 1995 PLD 632
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN TAREEN vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 313