Back
C. JAYACHANDRAN
SNIGDHA KUMAR D/O SUDESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID, ALAPPUZHA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 Order, which refused to issue a copy of the petitioner's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the First Information Statement given by the petitioner, an F.I.R. was registered as Crime No. 646/2018 of the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The investigation was subsequently transferred to C.B.C.I.D. and the crime was re-numbered as 167/CBI/TVPM/R/18. After investigation, Ext.P3 final report has been filed, concluding that the offences alleged has not been made out and requesting the Court to strike off the crime from the records. Dissatisfied, the petitioner/defacto complainant wanted to prefer a protest complaint against Ext.P3 refer report, for which purpose, petitioner wanted to peruse her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. Accordingly an application was filed. The same was dismissed vide Ext.P1, relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2020) 10 SCC 505.
2. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, Ext.P1 Order cannot be sustained in law. The judgment relied upon has no relevance to the facts in issue.
A defacto complainant is entitled to access their statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. after the investigation concludes and a final report is filed.
In eye of law, every person has a right to inspect public documents, provided he shows that he is individually interested in them.
Statements under S.164 Cr.P.C. are public documents accessible to entitled parties upon payment.
Accused cannot obtain copies of statements recorded under Section 164, CrPC, before filing of charge-sheet, despite them being public documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act.
An accused is entitled to all relevant statements recorded during criminal investigations to ensure a fair trial, as mandated by Section 173(4) Cr. P.C.
The evidentiary value of a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is limited and is used as an aid during trial.
Important Point:a) A criminal trial cannot be allowed to assume the character of fishing and roving enquiryb) it was the duty of the prosecution to ensure fair trial for both the prosecution and the ....
An inquiry officer under the Railway Property Act does not have the same obligations as a police officer, particularly regarding document disclosure to the accused.
The accused has a statutory right to a legible copy of the 164 statement for effective cross-examination, ensuring the right to a fair trial.
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
