The appellants are a brother and a sister who were charged respectively with the murder and abetment of murder of one Guntaka Somireddi in the village of Nunna on 13th May, 1946. They were both sentenced to death.

[His Lordship after discussing the facts and evidence proceeded to consider the objection as to the method of investigation.]

Mr. Jayarama Aiyar, however, has raised a point to which some attention must be given. He says that the method of investigation employed by the police was such as to deprive the accused and his advisers of the assistance or opportunity which the Criminal Procedure Code provides for scrutinising the evidence called for the prosecution. He based his contention in the main on the evidence of P.W. 14, the Circle Inspector, and on that of P.W.13 the Sub-Inspector, to a smaller extent. P.W.13 in cross-examination said that he collected the witnesses and kept them ready for investigation by his superior officer. He said that he did not examine any witness and that that was done by the Circle Inspector. The witnesses, he said, were examined separately and they were asked to state what they knew. As they were being examined, the Circle Inspector took some notes. The Circle. Inspector, P.W.14, says that he examined P.Ws.1 and 6 to 9 and 11 besides five others.

"I examined witnesses. From my case diary I cannot say whom I examined first and whom I examined second and so on. I cannot say from my case diary as to what each witness stated. I cannot also state from my memory. I took down my own notes. I first asked one by one what the witnesses knew of the offence and then took my own notes and questioned the witnesses again by way of verification of what notes of events I had taken down. In my notes I took a summary of what all the witnesses stated. Those notes will also give an idea of what each witness stated if carefully gone through. On the same day I elaborated it into the form I have in my case diary. I took into account all the reports, inquest report, mediators’ report, first information report, etc. I have my rough notes with me. They are not required to be sent anywhere. There is no prescribed rule under which these rough notes should be filed ...... As it is not necessary to prepare individual statements, I did not prepare any."

On these words Mr. Jayarama Aiyar builds up the contention that the police failed in their duty in not taking individual statements from each witness and preserving them so that they could have been available if required for the accused and his advisers to check the evidence given in the witness box by the various witnesses.

He has referred us to sections 160, 161, 162 and 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 160 provides that a police officer has power to require the attendance of any person who appears to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case. Section 161 provides that when such a person has been ordered to attend, the police officer may examine him orally as to the facts and circumstances of the case. Such person is bound to answer any questions put to him by the police officer, unless" they would tend to incriminate him. By a recent amendment, Act II of 1945, it is provided that if the police officer thinks fit he may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of his investigation, and if he does so, he must make a separate record of the statement of each person. If the police officer so decides, and a statement is taken from the individual witness, then under section 162 that may be used in the circumstances provided for in that section. Under section 172 there is a general direction that every police officer making an investigation must compile a diary day by day. Whether he does so from memory or by means of notes taken by him at the time is not provided and it would seem that the circumstances of each case must be considered if and when the conduct of the police in conducting an investigation is questioned.

In this