ORDER :

1. Proceedings of the matter have been taken-up through Video Conferencing.

2. This revision petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 6.4.2021 passed by Learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 27/2020 [State of Chhattisgarh v. Mehatarin Bai] whereby the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the Applicant under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'Code”).

3. Briefly stated facts of the case as narrated are that the applicant is an accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. She has moved an application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court calling for documents i.e. statement of witnesses recorded during merg enquiry with regard to Merg No. 25/2020 registered at Police Station Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, which according to the applicant are an important and relevant documents and also vital piece of evidence for her defence.

4. The court below, vide impugned order dated 6.4.2021, has rejected the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. holding that the said documents are part of case diary and not of charge sheet and copy of the charge sheet has already been provided to the applicant, therefore, as per law, required documents could not be furnished to the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant would submit that merg report was registered on the basis of information given by one Dharam Sahu, who is uncle of deceased-boy Vishal @ Dadu Sahu wherein it was informed that on 6.7.2020, deceased - boy fell into water-tank while he was playing with other children. During merg enquiry, witnesses of merg enquiry had also reiterated the same facts but later on due to previous family dispute and jealousness, the applicant was falsely implicated in this case stating that she has committed offence of murder of deceased – Boy by drowning him in the water tank, therefore, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that previous statements of witnesses, which were recorded by the Police during merg enquiry, are an important piece of evidence for the defence of the applicant, therefore, the order passed by the Court below rejecting application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., being perverse and illegal, is liable to be quashed. He placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court in the matter of Surendra Gupta alias Somaru v. State of C.G., 2016 (4) C.G.L.J. 253 and Mahaveer Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2017) 4 CGLJ 354, in support of his submissions.

6. Per contra, Learned counsel for the State opposes the said application filed by applicant on the ground that witness may be cross-examined as to his previous statements made by him as contemplated under Section 145 of the Evidence Act if such previous statements are brought on record, in accordance with law, before the Court and if the contingencies as contemplated under Section 172 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure are fulfilled. In support of his submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balakram v. State of Uttarakhand and others, Decided on 19.04.2017 in Criminal Appeal No. 694 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 9314 of 2016).

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the application.

8. A careful perusal of the merg intimation recorded on 6.7.2020, it reveals that Dharam Sahu, who is said to be the uncle of deceased -boy, informed that while playing with the children, deceased -boy fell into a water tank and after taking him out from the water tank, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Chhuikhadan, where he was declared brought dead.

9. It is one of the established legal belief that fair investigation and fair trial are backbone of criminal justice system. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution that it must provides all such relevant documents to the applicant, which are necessary and important for his just and