Goutam Bhaduri, J.

1. This revision is filed against the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kabirdham in Sessions Trial No.35/2016 wherein the application filed under section 91 of Cr.P.C., seeking direction to submit certain previous statements of witnesses and other papers was rejected.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case as narrated are that one Usha Chandrakar was married to the present applicant 17-18 years back. According to the prosecution, she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze on 26.6.2015. Initially, the merg intimation u/s 174 of Cr.P.C., was given on 17.7.2015 from hospital at Raipur where she died. The subsequent merg intimation was registered on the basis of same on 03.10.2015. The investigation was carried and initially the FIR was lodged against Mahavir Chandrakar, the husband; Kapil Chandrakar father in law; Virendra Chandrakar, brother-in-law, Smt. Rani Bai the daughter-in-law; and Ku. Chandralekha, the sister in law on 10.01.2016. In between, the investigation was carried out and the statement of witnesses were recorded. Eventually the police during investigation found that no case is made out except against that of Mahavir Chandrakar, who is husband and the charge sheet was filed against the applicant alone u/s 306 IPC. During the course of trial, an application u/s 91 of Cr.P.C., was moved interalia claiming that during the merg inquest as also during enquiry by the SDO (Police), the Statement of different persons few of them who were also cited as prosecution witnesses were recorded. It was further stated that on the basis of earlier statement recorded by the SDO(P), a detailed enquiry was carried out and the SDO(P) came to a definite finding that the persons apart from Mahavir chandrakar have not been named to have abetted the cause, consequently the SDOP by its finding directed to exonerate the other persons who were also named in FIR. In this background, it was stated that the statements so recorded earlier were relevant to the accused applicant, therefore, they should be supplied to the accused, having not been filed along-with the charge sheet.

3. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application vide order dated 12.06.2017 holding that according to prosecution, the accused had already obtained the document under Right to Information, therefore, the documents are no longer required and dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by such order, the present petition has been filed.

4. Shri K.A. Ansari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Meera Ansari would submit that the order of the court below is grossly illegal, which cannot be sustained. It is submitted that if the statements are recorded in previous enquiry and are required to be contradicted to find out the truth, then the accused have right to contradict the statements of the witnesses. It is further contended that withholding the document cannot be permitted when on the subject issue the statement was recorded and a categorical finding was arrived at by the SDO(P) whereby few of the accused were exonerated. He further placed reliance in 2001(2) CGLJ 216, Santosh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and would submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the application filed u/s 91 Cr.P.C ought to have been allowed and the order dated 12.06.2017 is to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the order. It is submitted that the copy of statement having been obtained under Right to Information Act, the accused has every right to confront them during cross examination and thereby the order of the court below is without any fault.

6. Perused the documents filed along-with the petition. It would show that the charge sheet has been filed against the applicant u/s 306 of IPC for death of his wife who committed suicide by setting herself ablaze on 26.6.2015. The case file also contains a letter dated 06.04.2016 which is a letter addressed by the S