Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : S.207 Cr.P.C.-prosecution Not Bound To Give Copies Of Evidence Not Relied Upon By It.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Ramadhin & Others Vs. State Of U.P. & Another On 24/09/2007 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 3699 OF 2007
CORAM : Hon'ble Raghunath Kishore Rastogi,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 36
Crl. Misc. Application No. 3699 Of 2007

Ramadhin And Others . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .Applicants.
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Opp. .Parties.
----
Hon'ble R.K. Rastogi,J.

This Is An Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. To Quash The Orders Dated 5.7.2005 And 31.1.2007 Passed By The By The Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -I, Hamirpur In S.T. No. 106 Of 2004, State Vs. Ramadhin And Others, Under Sections 323, 324, 504 And 304 I.P.C. Police Station Maudaha District Hamirpur.
The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Application Are That The Aforesaid Sessions Trial Is Pending Against The Applicants And Statement Of P.W.1 Vimal Singh Has Been Recorded In The Above Case. The Applicants Moved An Application Before The Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Hamirpur, Where The Case Is Pending , That Ramjiawan, One Of The Prosecution Witnesses In The Above Case, Had Moved An Application Before The Superintendent Of Police, Hamirpur On 21.7.1999 Alleging That The Police Had Not Properly Investigated The Case, The Real Culprits Had Not Been Named In The F.I.R., The Correct Description Of The Incident Had Also Not Been Noted In The F.I.R, Some Innocent Persons Had Been Falsely Implicated In The Incident And Names Of Some Known And Unknown Culprits Were Intentionally Not Written In The Report. This Application Was Investigated By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Maudaha Sri K.K.Singh And In Connection With That Inquiry He Recorded Statements Of Several Witnesses And Then He Submitted A Report To The Superintendent Of Police, Hamirpur On 18.8.1999. It Was Prayed By The Accused That Copies Of Statements Of Those Witnesses Which Were Recorded By Sri K.K. Singh, Deputy Superintendent Of Police Maudaha, And A Copy Of His Report Should Be Furnished To The Accused For Cross Examination Of The Prosecution Witnesses. This Application Was Rejected By The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court Vide His Order Dated 5.7.2005.Thereafter Another Application To The Same Effect Was Again Moved On 27.11.2006. This Application Was Rejected By The Addl. Sessions Judge Vide His Order Dated 31.1.2007 In Which He Also Referred To The Earlier Order Dated 5.7.2005, And Held That In View Of That Order The Present Application Was Liable To Be Dismissed. Aggrieved With Both These Orders The Present Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Has Been Filed.

A Counter Affidavit Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The State In Which It Has Been Asserted That The Aforesaid Inquiry Is A Separate Matter And It Was Conducted On The Application Of Ramjiawan That The Matter Was Not Being Properly Investigated And On Investigation Those Allegations Were Found To Be False And The Report To That Effect Was Submitted To The Superintendent Of Police Hamirpur In This Regard. It Has Further Been Asserted That The Statements Of Persons Recorded In Connection With The Aforesaid Inquiry Are Not Part Of The Case Diary Of The Case, And Copies Of All The Statements Of The Witnesses And Other Documents Upon Which The Prosecution Was Relying In Connection With The Present Sessions Trial Against The Accused, Have Already Been Furnished, And Statements Of The Persons Which Were Recorded In Connection With The Above Inquiry Have Got No Relevance With This Sessions Trial And So There Is No Legal Requirement To Supply Copies Of Those Statements To The Accused.

The Applicants Have Filed A Rejoinder Affidavit Also Asserting Their Contentions.
I Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Parties And Have Also Gone Through The Aforesaid Documents.
The Learned Counsel For The Applicants Cited Before Me Rulings Of This Court In 'Dr. Sanjay Singh And Others Vs. The State And Another' 1989 A.L.J. 1029 And In 'Charan Jeet Singh @ Tinkoo Sardar Vs. State Of U.P.' 2005 JIC (Allahabad ) 49 In Support Of His Contention.
I Have Carefully Gone Through Both These Rulings. It Has Been Held In The Case Of Dr. Sanjay Singh And Others (supra) That It Is The Duty Of The Court Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. To Furnish To Accused All Statements Recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Of All The Persons Whom The Prosecution Proposes To Examine As Witnesses. Thus, If The Prosecution Does Not Propose To Examine Any Person As A Witness, There Is No Necessity To Furnish Copy Of His Statement To The Accused.
In The Case Of Charan Jeet Singh @ Tinkoo Sardar (supra )v The Facts Were That The Committing Magistrate Had Not Supplied Copies Of The Statements Of All The Witnesses, And Copies Of Inquest Report, Post-mortem Report, G.D. And The Memo Regarding Carrying Away Dead Body. The Prosecution Was Relying Upon Those Documents So It Was Held That It Was Necessary For The Prosecution To Supply Copies Of These Documents To The Accused. In This Ruling Also It Has Been Observed In Paragraph No. 9 That Copies Of Documents Could Have Been Refused If The Prosecution Does Not Propose To Examine Those Witnesses Or Does Not Rely On Those Documents.

In The Present Case The Prosecution Has Asserted In The Counter Affidavit That Statements Of The Witnesses Referred To In The Application Of The Accused Were Taken In Connection With An Inquiry Instituted On The Complaint Of Ramjiawan That The Investigation Was Not Being Properly Conducted And That Inquiry Had No Concern With The Sessions Trial. The Prosecution Had Already Furnished To The Accused Copies Of Statements Of The Witnesses Recorded In The Case Diary Of The Present Sessions Trial. As Such There Had Been Compliance Of The Requirements Of Section 207 Cr.P.C. And There Was No Necessity For The Prosecution To Furnish Copies Of The Statements Of Those Persons Which Were Recorded By The Police In Connection With The Above Inquiry. The Learned Addl. Sessions Judge Has Rightly Rejected The Application Of The Accused And There Is No Illegality In The Order Passed By Him.
It May Also Be Noted That Prosecution Witnesses Which Are Being Produced By The Prosecution Can Be Cross Examined With Regard To Their Own Statements Which Had Been Recorded By The Investigating Officer Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In Connection With The Present Sessions Trial And There Is No Question Of Cross Examining Them On The Basis Of The Statements Of Other Persons Whose Statements Had Been Recorded In Connection With The Other Inquiry. However, If The Statements Of Those Persons Which Had Been Recorded In Connection With That Inquiry Are Considered Necessary By The Accused For Their Defence They May Summon Those Persons As Defence Witnesses At The Proper Stage. There Is No Question Of Furnishing Copies Of Their Statements To The Accused For Cross Examination Of Other Prosecution Witnesses.

The Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Has Thus Got No Force And It Is Hereby Dismissed With The Above Observations.

Go to Navigation