Back
KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Anjan Ganguly – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
Key Points: - Contradictions in witness statements with their 161 Cr.P.C. statements must be brought to the witness’s notice during cross-examination before the Investigating Officer can be examined to prove the statement. (!) (!) - The Court has power to recall witnesses for further cross-examination or to take additional evidence, and delay in filing such applications should not necessarily bar the pursuit of truth. (!) (!) - The proper procedure requires confronting the witness with the contradicting portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement, and only then may the Investigating Officer be examined to prove the contradiction; failure to confront precludes proving the contradiction via the Investigating Officer. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Proviso to Section 162(1) Cr.P.C. and Section 145 IPC require that contradictions be proved, with the prior confrontation, and that omission may amount to a contradiction; if not properly confronted, contradictions cannot be taken into account. (!) (!) (!) (!) - In this case the court dismissed the application to recall the IO due to lack of proper confrontation and delay, upholding the trial court’s order. (!) (!) - The evaluation references to Pedda Narayana, Sat Paul, and other authorities establish the framework for proving contradictions and the admissibility constraints of police statements. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.:- This revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the impugned order dated 11th of April, 2012 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Barrackpore, whereby he refused to recall P.W. 10 Swadhin Ranjan Guha, a police officer who recorded the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to prove contradictions, be set aside.
2. It will be necessary to recapitulate brief facts to appreciate the issues raised and decide them.
3. A case being Baranagar Police Station case no. 75 dated 3rd April, 2006 under Section 498A/326 I.P.C. was registered against the petitioners at the instance of Swapan Kumar Bhattacharya. Later due to the death of deceased Section 306 I.P.C was added. In the FIR, it was stated by the de facto complainant that his daughter Soumi Ganguly was married with petitioner no. 1 Anjan Ganguly. She suffered serious burn injuries in her matrimonial home and was admitted in R. G. Kar Medical College & Hospital. Husband Anjan Ganguly, mother-in-law Smt. Bela Ganguly, sister-in-law Smt. Ruma Chatterjee and her son Papai Chatterjee were named as accus
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
