HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
Saravanan & Others - Appellants
Versus
The State Represented through the Inspector of Police, Vaipoor - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 5272 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. No. 3323 of 2023
Decided On : 17-03-2023
General Diary - Criminal Procedure - Section 91 (1) Cr.P.C. - 172 (1) Cr.P.C. - 172 (2) Cr.P.C. - 172 (3) Cr.P.C. - Summary: The court discussed the admissibility of the General Diary and its relevance in establishing the timing and nature of the FIR registration. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the General Diary and the Case Diary, emphasizing the necessity of summoning the General Diary in certain circumstances. The court overruled previous judgments and directed the production of the General Diary to ascertain the suppression of the FIR.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to set aside an order related to the production of the General Diary from a police station to establish the timing and nature of the FIR registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the production of the General Diary was necessary to determine if the FIR registered on a specific date was suppressed and another FIR was registered later.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the admissibility and necessity of summoning the General Diary to establish the sequence of FIR registrations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between the General Diary and the Case Diary, and ruled that the production of the General Diary was necessary in the specific circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order and directed the respondent to produce the attested true copy of the Case Diary for the specified period.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to allow this Crl.O.P. to set aside the order in case Crl.M.P.No.1896 of 2022 in S.C.No.14 of 2022 dated on 05.01.2023 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur and to allow the Crl.M.P. aforesaid.)
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to set aside the order in Crl.M.P.No.1896 of 2022 in S.C.No.14 of 2022, dated on 05.01.2023, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur and to allow this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.1896 of 2022 in S.C.No.14 of 2022 under Section 91 (1) Cr.P.C., to submit the General Diary of Vaipoor police station for the year 2021 from January 1st to 31st day through one of the Investigation Officer Mr.Ramesh, Inspector of Police or Mr.Karunanithi, Inspector of Police.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that on 23.01.2021, one Vishnupriya preferred a complaint stating that her husband Maharajan was murdered in Pallivaramangalam. Based on the complaint, FIR in crime No.84 of 2021 was registered at about 2.00 a.m. on 24.01.2021. On the same date, another FIR came to be registered based on the complaint given by the Sub Inspector of of Police, Mr.Krishnakumar and that was destroyed on the basis of the advice given by the District Superintendent of Police, Thiruvarur. When PW18 was questioned about this, he denied. He deposed that the duty particulars of Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Krishnakumar on 23.01.2021 and 24.01.2021 were mentioned in the General Diary. Another reason why the Case Diary particulars are required is that in the accident register, it was mentioned that the body of the deceased Maharajan was brought to the hospital by the Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Krishnakumar of Vaipoor police station at about 10 p.m. on 23.01.2021. In the accident register, it was referred as Crime No.84 of 2021 under Section 302 IPC. It is obvious from the accident register that FIR was registered on the night of 23.01.2021 in Crime No.84 of 2021 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. But, the prosecution case now is that FIR in Crime No.84 of 2021 was registered on 24.01.2021 on the basis of the complaint given by Vishnupriya. There is a striking contradiction in the accident register and the FIR as to the date, time of registration of FIR and on whose complaint FIR was registered. This crucial aspect can be elicited only if General Diary is summoned. The Sub Inspector of Police Mr.Krishnakumar is not shown as witness. In the said circumstances, it is necessary for the accused to summon the General Diary aforesaid.
4. The General Diary is not like a Case Diary and therefore, it can be summoned. In support of his submissions, he produced the judgment in Siva Vs. State reported in 2000 (3) MWN (Cr.)23. The relevant portion of the order is extracted as follows:
3. The Police Officers are required to maintain two diaries, viz. (i) A diary where entries are made about the events which take place in the Police Station in Chronological order and it is ordinarily difficult to fabricate false entries in such diary and this diary has to be maintained day by day. This diary is known as general diary, (ii) Apart from general diary, the Police Officer who happens to be the investigating officer has to maintain a case diary. The case diary should set forth the proceedings day by day of the investigating officer and must record inter alia the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
4. What is referred to under Section 172 (1) Cr.P.C. is the case diary. It has two parts, viz., (i) relating to the steps taken during investigation by the Police Officer with particular reference to the time at which the Police received the in
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of summoning the General Diary in specific circumstances to establish the timing and nature of FIR registrations.
A fair investigation is crucial; discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses can lead to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused's right to access statements recorded under Section 161(3) is essential for a fair trial, and failure to provide these documents violates procedural justice.
The registration of an FIR is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed; however, a General Diary entry may be treated as an FIR in appropriate cases.
FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offence is disclosed; GD entries may be treated as FIRs in certain cases.
Point of law: Quash of order - it is not upon accused to disprove their case or to show who the guilty is, and the entire Durden of proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt would be sole....
The court cannot impose procedural requirements not specified in existing laws, emphasizing the separation of judicial and legislative functions.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.