LexSTATE OF NCT OF DELHI versus RAVI KANT SHARMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. A ST A TE OF NCT OF DELHI ~ v. RA VI KANT SHARMA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 13, 2007 B [DR. ARIJJT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-ss.161and172-Gistslobservation ' recorded during interrogation-Non-supply of to the accused-Held, rigluly c not supplied-Accused entitled only to the copy of statement recorded under :!._ s.161. Prosecution case was that PW 193, the Inspector had interrogated PW 66. The accused-respondent requested for supply of the gists of statement of interrogation of PW-66. The Prosecution contended that PW-193 had merely D recorded his own observation and the gists cannot be treated as statement of PW66. Trial Court held that even the gists made after interrogating a person amounts to statement under s.161(3) Cr.P.C. and accused is entitled to get copy of such gists and directed the Prosecution to supply same to the accused. E Against this opinion/direction, appellant filed revision. High Court observed that if the gists pertain to observation made by PW-193 himself then these are not to be disclosed to respondent. However, if the gists can be regarded as statements under s.161(3) although in summary F form made by PW-66 then in view of Shamshul Kanwar Case*, same may be supplied to respondent. In view of this, High Court remitted the case to trial "\ Court for d.etermining the issue. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the conceptual difference between the statement of witnesses recorded under s. 172 Cr.P.C. and case G diary under s.161 Cr.P.C. has been lost sight of; that Shamshul Kanwar's case* on which the High Court relied on dealt with cases having composite case diary which include the statement recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C. as well ..,.. as the observation of the investigating officer under s.172 Cr.P.C. and that in the State of NCT of Delhi, the case diary is being maintained separately and - H 540 '' j ST A TE OF NCT OF DELHI v. RA VI KANT SHARMA 541 -\. hence there is no question of any portion of case diary being looked into to A find out whether statement under s. 161 have been recorded therein or not. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Under s.161 Cr.P.C., the police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of examination under that B provision and if he does so he shall make separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. In a given case ·1 the investigating officer may record circumstances ascertained during ' investigation in the case diary in terms of s.172 Cr.P.C. It is only when the investigating officer decides to record the statement of witnesses under s.161 c Cr.P.C. that he becomes obliged to make a true record of the statement which obviously will not include the interpretation of the investigating officer of the ... statements or the gists of statement. [Para 1111546-B-C) ·i ~.2. Sub-section (b) of s.173 Cr.P.C. which authorises the police officer to claim a sort of privilege in respect of any statement recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C. after giving reasons as to why such statement may not be provided to D • the accused. Such privilege can only be claimed in respect of statement ' recorded under s.161 Cr.P.C. and not in respect of what the officer records f in the case diary i.e. the gist of the statement under s.172 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate has to, in terms of s.207, provide to the accused, free of cost, copies of statements recorded under s.161 (3) subject to the exceptions in terms of E .. s. 173(6). [Para 11) (546-C-D] 2. In different States case diaries are maintained in different ways. Some States have a composite case diary which includes the statements recorded under s. 161 Cr.P.C. as well as the observations of the investigating officer F under s.172 Cr.P.C. This court, therefore, in Shamshul Kanwar's case* held ( that the statements under s.161 need to be separated from observations which are recorded under s.172 in order to make available the statement under s. 161(3) to the accused. The position is entirely different here. [Para 13] Shamshul Kanwar v. State of Uttar Pradesh* [1995] 4 SCC 430, G referred to. > -~ 3. The direction of the High Court as contained in the impugne<! order is not a definite one. It only refers to Shamshul Kanwar's case* and concludes that ifthe 'gists' can be regarded as statements under s.161 Cr.P.C. although H ~- 542 SUPREME COURT R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.