1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant-original accused calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 17th November, 2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar below Exh.265 in the Sessions Case No. 34 of 2014.

2. The case of the applicant, as pleaded in her application, is as under;

“3.1 That in the month of July 2008, death of 2 children-Dipesh and Abhishek had occurred near the Ashram at Motera.

3.2 That to find out the truth behind the said incident as commission namely Justice D.K. Trivedi Commission was appointed.

3.3 That in the aforesaid Commission, the evidence of PW-26 being Rajubhai Kishanlal Chandak of the present case had started and PW-26 was also examined before the Justice D.K. Trivedi Commission as witness no.27.

3.4 That a statement of the said witness was recorded by Police Inspector Ms. D.B. Rabiya on 10.11.2013 and as per the witness statement recorded by the Justice D.K. Trivedi Commission the witness had stated that the statement was also recorded in Jodhpur, Rajput. That it is for the sake of convenience of this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner states that an FIR being I-CR No. 218 of 2013 dated 03.10.2013 was registered with Chandkheda Police Station, Ahmedabad against the present petitioner alongwith the other accused persons for the offences punishable under section 376(2)(c), 377, 354, 357, 342, 346, 506(1), 120-B of Indian Penal Code and thereby Charge sheet was also filed being numbered as 11 of 2014 dated 09.01.2014.

3.5 That it is submitted that an application was moved before the Hon’ble Court below for granting permission to contradict the PW No.26 namely Rajubhai Kishanlal Chandak from his previous deposition given before Justice D.K. Trivedi Commission under Exhibit no.265 dated 05.10.2017. That the Hon’ble Court below rejected the application vide order dated 17.11.2017.”

3. Mr. Bhadrish Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, vehemently submitted that the Trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the application Exh.265, seeking permission to contradict the witness with his statement made before the Commission.

4. Mr. Bhadrish Raju submitted that the interpretation put upon section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 by the trial court is erroneous. Mr. Raju contends that reading section 6 as a whole, it is clear that the protection afforded by section 6 is against fastening any civil or criminal liability on a person appearing as a witness before a commission to give evidence, because of any statement in his evidence before the Commission. The counsel submitted that the words “no statement shall be used against him” in section 6 should not be interpreted to mean that such a statement cannot be used for any purpose whatever. The learned counsel also relies on the words “except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such statement” to contend that these words, by necessary implication, indicate that a statement before the commission can be used and proved to show that the witness making that statement has hereby deliberately given false evidence before the Commission.

5. Mr. Raju submitted that the defence should be permitted to contradict the witness concerned with his statement made before the commission for the following reasons;

“(1) Entire extracts of the statement recorded before the Justice D.K. Trivedi Commission have been reproduced verbatim in the S. 161 statement recorded by the police in the present case on a prejudicial pick and choose basis with the statements favouring the petitioner having been intentionally omitted.

(2) The witness in respect of whom the present petition is filed, in his 2nd statement under S. 161 of Cr.PC has sought to explain inconsistencies in his 1st statement under S. 161 of Cr.PC and his previous statement recorded before the Justice D.K. Trivedi Commission.

(3) The prosecution has sought to rely upon the statement recorded by the witness before the J