Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(P&H) 4157

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Daya Chaudhary, J.
Gurmeet Ram Rahim - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Special Crime - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 45571 of 2018
Decided On : 03-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Tanveer Ahmed Mir, Adv., Dhruv Gupta, Adv., Munish Behl, Adv., Sumeet Goel, Adv.

Accused's right to access all necessary evidence for a fair trial, including witness statements not part of the charge sheet, as per Section 91 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
Section 91 Cr.P.C - Access to Witness Statements - Section 91 - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking access to witness statements not included in the charge sheet. The trial court dismissed the petition, leading to the present challenge.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had the right to access the witness statements under Section 91 Cr.P.C, as they were necessary for a fair trial. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to allow the petitioner to inspect and access the relevant witness statements.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's right to access witness statements not included in the charge sheet under Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused had the right to access all necessary evidence for a fair trial, including witness statements not part of the charge sheet, as per Section 91 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The trial court was directed to allow the petitioner to inspect and access the relevant witness statements.

JUDGMENT

Daya Chaudhary, J. - Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of impugned order dated 29.09.2018 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Haryana at Panchkula in case FIR No.RC1(S)/2015 SCU.V/SCII/CBI/New Delhi dated 07.01.2015 registered under Sections 120-B, 326, 417 and 506 IPC at Police Station SCII/CBI New Delhi titled as "CBI vs Gurmeet Ram Rahim and others" to the extent of dismissal of application dated 28.09.2018 filed by him under Section 91 Cr.P.C and further directing the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation to supply all copies of the documents as mentioned in the application including statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the Investigating Agency during investigation.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as made out in the petition are that during pendency of the trial, an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C for supplying the material documents collected by the Central Bureau of Investigation during the course of investigation including statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, which are not part of the charge sheet/final report/challan. Said application has been dismissed vide order dated 29.09.2018 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Haryana at Panchkula, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 207 read with Section 91 Cr.P.C seeking directions to the prosecution/Investigating Authority to file on record and also to supply him the copies of statements of witnesses of total 122 persons recorded by the Investigating Agency. Earlier the petitioner had approached this Court by way of filing CRR No.2740 of 2018 under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.10.2018. Learned counsel also submits that although the statements of 128 witnesses were recorded but around 20 persons, whose statements were recorded, admitted that they were castrated and did not support the case of the prosecution and 20 witnesses refused to undergo medical examination. Statements of 122 witnesses examined during the course of investigation were concealed and were neither brought to the notice of the Court nor copies thereof were supplied to the petitioner, whereas, those statements are most essential and crucial to confront the witnesses at the time of cross-examination. Learned counsel also submits that in absence of aforesaid statements, it would be difficult for the accused persons to test the credibility of the statements given by the alleged victims.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in cases Dayal Singh and others vs State of Uttaranchal , (2012) 8 SCC 263, Purshottam Jethanand vs The State of Kutch , (1954) AIR SC 700, Nitya Dharmananda and others vs Gopal Sheelum Reddy and others , (2018) 2 SCC 93, Arulvelu and another vs State , (2009) 10 SCC 206, Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State of Maharashtra , (2002) 2 SCC 135, Union of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and another , (1979) 3 SCC 4, Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs State of Gujarat , (2004) CriLJ 2050, judgment of Delhi High Court in case Shakuntala vs State of NCT Delhi , (2007) 139 DLT 178, judgment of Bombay High Court in case Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari vs State of Maharashtra , (2013) CriLJ 858, judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case Neelesh Jain vs State of Rajasthan , (2006) CriLJ 2151, judgment in case Pulukuri Kottaya and others vs Emperor , (1947) AIR PC 67, judgment of Gujarat High Court in case Pravinkumar Lalchand Shah vs State of Gujarat and another , (1982) CriLJ 763 in support of his arguments.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-CBI submits that a detailed speaking order has been passed by the trial Court. He also submits that the petitioner has a right of having those doc