2001 (2) C.G.L.J. 216
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
R.S. Garg, J.
Santosh
Vs
State Of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Revision No.287 of 2001
Decided on : 29/8/2001
Section 174 - Criminal Procedure Code - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The court discussed the scope of Section 174 and the requirement to produce evidence collected during inquest. It also highlighted the provisions of Sections 161 and 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and their implications on the admissibility of witness statements.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant challenged the rejection of their application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the production of evidence collected during the inquest for the trial.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the statements recorded during the inquest are required to be produced for just and proper disposal of the trial, and the prosecution agency is obligated to bring the entire case before the Court.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the admissibility of evidence collected during the inquest and the prosecution's obligation to produce such evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the statements recorded during the inquest can be used for contradicting witnesses and must be produced for a fair trial. It emphasized the accused's right to access and use previous statements of witnesses for establishing contradictions.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the lower court's order and directed the prosecution agency to produce all documents related to the inquest, enquiry, or trial, except the daily diary written by the investigating officer.
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 6-7-2001 passed by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 297 of 2001 rejecting the applicant's application filed under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has come to this Court.
2. During the course of the trial the applicant/accused made an application before the Trial Court inter alia submitting that the evidence collected during the course of the inquest has not been filed by the prosecution along with the charge-sheet and as the same is required to be filed for just and proper disposal of the trial and the said statements may be required for the purposes of cross-examination the prosecution agency be directed to produce the said documents before the Court. The said application was opposed by the prosecution mainly on the ground that the prosecution agency was not obliged to file each and every document but was required to file those documents on which they were placing reliance. It was also submitted before the Court below that when an inquest is made under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the evidence collected or the statements recorded during the course of the said inquest are neither required to be filed nor can be termed as evidence, therefore, the same were not required to be filed.
3. Learned Trial Court after hearing the parties held that in accordance with Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if the evidence is collected or the statements are recorded the same is not required to be produced in the Court. The Trial Court was also of the opinion that only those documents are required to be filed before the Court on which the prosecution was placing reliance and the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alone are required to be filed along with the charge-sheet.
4. Shri R.N. Jha, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the statements when are recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC then the action of the prosecution agency shows that the statements are being recorded during the course of the investigation. He submits that when an inquest or enquiry is made by the prosecution into the cause of the death and if certain statements are recorded during the course of the inquest then such statements being the previous statements of the witnesses are required to be filed in the Court. According to him the prosecution agency is required to bring the entire case before the Court and is not authorised to pre-judge the issue.
5. Shri Ranveer Singh, learned Govt. Advocate, for the Slate submits that the Court below had discretion to grant or reject the application, therefore, there is no scope for interference.
6. Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :--
"174. Police to enquire and report on suicide, etc.-- (1) When the officer-in-charge of a police station or some other police officer specially empowered by the State Government in that behalf receives information that a person has committed suicide, or has been killed by another or by an animal or by machinery or by an accident, or has died under circumstances raising a reasonable suspicion that some other person has committed an offence, he shall immediately give intimation thereof to the nearest Executive Magistrate empowered to hold inquests, and unless otherwise directed by any rule prescribed by the State Government, or by any general or special order of the District or Sub-Divisional Magistrate, shall proceed to the place where the body of such deceased person is, and there, in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighbourhood, shall make an investigation, and draw up a report of the apparent cause of death, describing such wounds, fractures, bruises, and other marks of injury as may be found on the body, and stating in what manner, or by what weapon or instrument (if any); such marks appear to have been inflicted.
(2) The report shall be signed by such poli
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.