Shiv Raj Singh vs State (Union Territory, Chandigarh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(P&H) 758

2011(3) RCR(Cri) 129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Nirmaljit Kaur
Shiv Raj Singh -Petitioner
Versus
The State (Union Territory, Chandigarh -Respondent
Crl. Misc. No.M-17996 of 2010
Ravdeep Kaur -Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2010
Crl. Rev. No.2075 of 2010
State (Union Territory, Chandigarh) –Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Ravdeep Kaur and another -Respondents
Decided on: 14.03.2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Baldev Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2010
Mr. Sukant Gupta, Advocate for U.T. Chandigarh for the petitioner in Crl. Rev. No.2075 of 2010 & CRM-M 17996-2010
Mr. P.K. Khindria, Advocate for U.T.Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No.M-17996 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2010
Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-17996 of 2010

Headnote:
Case Diary - Right of Accused to Case Diary - Sections 172(3), 207 of Cr.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 172(3), 207 of Cr.P.C - The court discussed the right of the accused to access the case diary and the limitations imposed by Sections 172(3) and 207 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted that the accused is entitled to copies of documents as referred to in Section 207 of the Cr.P.C and the statements in a case diary only if they are used by the police officer who made the entries to refresh his memory or if the Court uses them for contradicting the police officer. The court also emphasized that the accused does not have an unfettered right to the entries in the case diary and that reasonable restrictions may be placed on the right of the accused to access such case entries.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved a dispute regarding the supply of statements recorded by different investigating officers during a murder case. The accused sought copies of statements recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh, which were not supplied by the prosecution. The accused argued that the statements were crucial for examination and cross-examination of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused is entitled to copies of documents as referred to in Section 207 of the Cr.P.C and the statements in a case diary only if they are used by the police officer who made the entries to refresh his memory or if the Court uses them for contradicting the police officer. The court emphasized that the accused does not have an unfettered right to the entries in the case diary and that reasonable restrictions may be placed on the right of the accused to access such case entries.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had the right to access the statements recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh and whether the prosecution was obligated to supply these statements to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused is entitled to copies of documents and statements in a case diary only if they are used by the police officer who made the entries to refresh his memory or if the Court uses them for contradicting the police officer. The court emphasized that the accused does not have an unfettered right to the entries in the case diary and that reasonable restrictions may be placed on the right of the accused to access such case entries.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order to hand over the statement of Satinder Singh Sekhon recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh to the accused and allowed the appeals filed by the accused. The court dismissed the application filed by the accused seeking the statement of Harchand Singh recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh.

JUDGMENT

NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.

1. Crl. Misc. No.M-17996 of 2010, Crl. Misc. No.M-22279 of 2010 and Crl. Rev. No.2075 of 2010 shall stand disposed of vide this common order as the impugned order dated 26.05.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, in all the cases, is same.

2. FIR No.321 dated 14.10.2005 under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala for the murder of Shri Vijay Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Labour Court, Chandigarh at Patiala. The case was investigated by the police at Patiala and after the investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court at Patiala. Thereafter, the case has been transferred to the Courts at Chandigarh under the orders of this Court for the purpose of trial.

3. The issue herein is that Inspector Sewa Singh PW56 (now Deputy Superintendent of Police) recorded the statement of various witnesses including that of Satinder Singh Sekhon @ Channi and Harchand Singh. The prosecution is stated to have supplied statement of witnesses recorded by Inspector Sewa Singh but not those recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh. Accordingly, during the course of trial, when the case was fixed for 16.01.2010 for further cross examination of Deputy Superintendent of Police Sewa Singh, who was also the Investigating Officer, Dr. Ravdeep Kaur accused moved an application before this Court for supply of copies of statements recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh, who was earlier examined as PW47, Satinder Singh Sekhon PW9 and Harchand Singh PW20, as also of Ram Singh alias Kala, in the case diary. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide order dated 26.05.2010 ordered that the statement of Satinder Singh Sekhon alias Channi recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh in his case diary be supplied to the petitioner, while declining the prayer for supply of other entries made in the case diary.

4. Aggrieved, the complainant has filed Crl. Misc. No.M-17996 of 2010 challenging the impugned order, vide which, the statement of Satinder Singh Sekhon @ Channi, recorded by Inspector Jassa Singh has been supplied by raising two fold arguments :

Firstly, the law is well settled as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that under Section 172(3) Cr.P.C, the accused is not entitled to call for the diaries. The safeguard has been provided only to the Court and it has been unfettered power to examine diaries in order to contradict the police officer and placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case of Md. Ankoos and ors. vs. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. reported as 2010(1) RCR (Crl.) 917, Mukund Lal, petitioner vs. Union of India and another, respondents vs. Mohinder Singh, petitioner vs. Union of India and another, respondents, reported as AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 144 and Mahabir Singh, appellant vs. State of Haryana, respondent with Sultan, appellant vs. State of Haryana, respondent and Sis Pal, appellant vs. State of Haryana, respondent and Ranbir Singh, appellant vs. State of Haryana, respondent reported as AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2503.

Secondly, Inspector Jassa Singh had never maintained a composite diary during investigation, Crl. Misc. No.M-17996 of 2010 4 which also includes the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. This fact has been made clear by PW47 Inspector Jassa Singh during his cross examination dated 03.01.2009. Further, he had specifically stated that he did not need to use the same for refreshing his memory and nor is the Court relying on the same. As such, the same cannot be supplied in view of the well settled proposition of law as held by Hon'ble the Apex Court in 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 917, as well as, on account of the provisions of Section 172 (3) of the Cr.P.C., as well as Rule 1 of Chapter 12 of the High Court Rules and Regulations, Volume 3. Further, the relevant statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C by all the Investigating Officers during investigation have already been su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document