JUDGMENT - (1) (After stating the facts and discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded :)

Then there is the statement of the accused made before, the Committing Magistrate. In this Statement, he has stated that, on that night, he had asked Kavita to sleep inside his house, that she refused to do so and that she told him that she would not stay with him and that on the following morning she would send for panchas and take a divorce. She then slept outside in the Pejari. He woke up in the morning and as he was angry with her, he took up a stone and gave two or three blows with it to her and killed her. In this statement, therefore the accused has admitted that he had killed kavita. Before recording this statement of the accused, the Committing Magistrate had not recorded any evidence. It has, therefore, been urged that this statement made before the Committing Magistrate is not admissible in evidence. It is, therefore, necessary to consider the relevant provisions of Section 207-A, whcih lay down the procedure to be doopted in proceedings instituted on a police report. Sub-section (4) of Section 173 provides that after the investigation is completed, the accused shall be supplied with a copy of the report of the police officer submitted to a Magistrate under sub-section (1) and of the first information report recorded under Section 154 and of all other documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely. Sub-section (3) of Section 207-A states that the the commencement of the inquiry, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself that the documents referred to in Section 173 had been furnished to the accused and if the finds that the accused had not been furnished with such documents or any of them, he shall cause the same to be so furnished. Sub-section (4) sttes that the Magistrate shall theen proceed to take the evidence of such persons, if any, as may be produced by the prosecutions as witnesses to the actual commission of the offence and if the Magistrate is of opinion that it is necessary in the interests of justice to take the evidence of any one or more of the other witnesses for the prosecution, he may take such evidence also. This sub-section has been construed by this Court in The State v. Dhirajlal Maneklal, 59 Bom LR 645, in which it was held that it not obligatory upon the prosecution to produce before the Magistrate at the stage of the committal inquiry all or any of the persons who might have winnessed the actual commission of the offence and that the prosecution has an absolute discretion in the matter. It is, therefore, open to the prosecution not to examine any witnesses in the inquiry held by the Magistrate. Then come sub-sections (6) and (7) which are in the following terms :

"(6) When the evidence referred to in sub-section (4) has been taken and the Magistrate has considered all the documents referred to in Section 173 and has, if necessary, examined the accused for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him and given the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, such Magistrate shall, if he is of opinion that such evidence and documents disclose no grounds for committing the accused person for trial record his reasons, and discharge him, unless it appears to the Magistrate that such person should be tried before himself or some other Magistrate, in which case he shall proceed accordingly.

(7) When, upon such evidence being taken, such documents being considered, such examination (if any) being made and the prosecution and the accused being given an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate is of opinion that the accused should be committed for trial he shall frame charge under his hand, declaring with what offence the accused is charged".

The procedure which the Magistrate has to follow, therefore is that after satisfying himself that the accused has been supplied with the requisite documents, he has to take the evid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document