Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Ravinder Dudeja, J
DEVANGANA KALITA – Appellant
Versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 8909/2024 & CRL.M.A. 34100/2024 & CRL.M.A. 34101/2024 & CRL.M.A. 1491/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr Adit S Pujari, Ms Vanya Chhabra, Mr Siddharth Kaushal
For the Respondents: Mr. Anuj Handa, Ms. Sanya Handa, Ms. Akansha Chandok, Mr. Shubham Pandey
The court highlighted the necessity of maintaining chronological records in police investigations as essential for ensuring trial fairness, affirming that such records do not constitute substantive evidence accessible to the accused.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 172 and 91 - Preservation and reconstruction of case diaries - The court upheld the importance of maintaining proper chronological diaries by police as pivotal for fair trial and accountability. The trial court's refusal on grounds of the procedural aspect was scrutinized. Clear differentiation between substantive evidence and police diary entries was emphasized, affirming the accused's lack of unfettered rights to inspect diaries. The court directed preservation of relevant case diaries but denied reconstruction. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 12, 15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed regarding preservation of case diary booklets. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner alleges ante-dating in statements recorded by the police. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. discussion on section 172 cr.p.c. and its implications. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. judicial authority over police diaries and necessity for trial fairness. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. final ruling on preservation vs. reconstruction of diaries. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.
1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’) [earlier Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’)] seeking setting aside of the order dated 06.11.2024 passed by learned JMFC-04, (Shahdara), Karkardooma Court, New Delhi and direction to respondent-Investigating Agency to reconstruct and preserve Booklets 9989 and 9990 made in connection with investigation of case titled ‘State v. Faizan & Ors.’ in FIR No. 48/2020, PS-Jafrabad.
2. That the facts in brief are as follows:
2.1. On 24.02.2020, FIR No. 48/2020 was registered under sections 186/188/353/283/341/109/147/34 IPC at PS Jafrabad based on a complaint by SI Devendra Singh about an alleged protest against CAA and NRC by crowd of about 200-400 people gathered below Jafrabad Metro Station thereby blocking the main road and causing obstruction to commuters and tension in the area.
2.2. Chargesheet was filed upon completion of investigation against 26 persons including the petitioner herein under sections 147/ 353/ 186/ 188/ 341/ 283/ 109/ 153A/34 IPC.
2.3. Subsequently the trial commenced wherein vide order dated 17.12.2020 the Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the chargesheet and issued summons.
2.4. On 06.11.2024 petitioner raised the issue of tampering and ante dating of the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C . which were part of the case dairy and supplementary chargesheet on the premise that there was a discrepancy in the Booklet Nos. and Page Nos. of the respective sheets on which the statements under section 161 Cr.P.C . had been recorded and thereby requested for preservation of case diary i.e. booklet no. 9989 and 9990.
2.5. The Ld. Trial Court declined the relief sought with reason that the issue was a procedural aspect thereby truthfulness and veracity of the allegations could not be looked upon by the court at the present stage. Further the court also clarified that the statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C . are barred by section 162 Cr.P.C ,, thus, are not even considered as a substantive piece of evidence and could be used by accused persons at appropriate stage for specific purpose as provided under the said section.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 06.11.2024 of the trial court be set aside and booklets 9989 and 9990 in connection with investigation of the case titled as State v. Faizan & Ors. in case FIR No. 48/2020 at PS Jafrabad in Cr. Case 3811/2020 be reconstructed and preserved. His submissions in support of his request are summarized as follows:
3.1. The statements recorded by the investigating agency under section 161 Cr.P.C . in the present FIR are ante-dated statements on ground that subsequent numbered pages in Volume No. 9989 and 9990 of Police dairy maintained in terms of mandate under section 172 Cr.P.C . containing statements are recorded earlier and prior 3 numbered pages containing the same statements have been recorded subsequently.
3.2. In the present case, despite the mandate of Section 172 Cr.P.C ., the chargesheet filed contains extracts from police diary Volumes No. 9989 and 9990 which have demonstrable ante dated statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C as illustrated below:
3.2.1. In Case Diary booklet no. 9990, statement dated 09.03.2020 is recorded at page 8, whereas the statement dated 26.02.2020 are recorded subsequently at pages 31-43.
3.2.2. In Case Diary booklet no. 9989, statements purporting to have been recorded on 09.06.2020 are at page nos. 7-15, whereas
