Since in the matter on hand, neither the police
officer has refreshed his memory with reference to entries
in the police diary nor has the trial court used the entries
in the diary for the purposes of contradicting the police
officer (PW-15), it is not open for the accused to produce
certain pages of police diary obtained by him under the
provisions of Right to Information Act for the purpose of
contradicting the police officer.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 694 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9314 of 2016)
Balakram V State of Uttarakhand & Ors
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Dated: April 19, 2017.
Citation:(2017)7 SCC 668
Leave granted.
2. The judgment in Miscellaneous application No.
1123 of 2016, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital setting aside the order dated 31.8.2016 in I.A.
No. 174 Kha in S.T. No. 1 of 2015 is called on question in
this appeal.
3. Respondent No.3 herein, along with another
accused, is facing trial in ST No. 01 of 2015 before the
Sessions Court, Champawat for the offences punishable
under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. During the course of
the trial, after the completion of examination in chief of
PW-15, an application was filed by the respondent No.3
herein (one of the accused), the contents of which read
thus:-
“In the above mentioned case applicant wants to
submit some key and relevant documents which
are necessary for the fair and just trial of instant
case.
It is therefore, humbly prayed that your
Honour may kindly grant permission for the same
in the interest of justice.”
4. Along with the application, list of documents to be
produced was also filed. The documents are stated to be
copies of certain pages of Police diary maintained under
Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
brevity, Cr.P.C.), by the Investigation Officer (PW-15),
which were obtained by respondent No.3 by making an
application under the provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005. The respondent No. 3 proposes to confront
PW 15 with those documents.
5. Such application was opposed by the appellant
herein/complainant on the ground that the fresh
documents cannot be allowed to be produced by the
accused at the premature stage of trial and it is always
open for the accused to produce such documents during
the stage of recording of statements of the accused under
Section 313, Cr.P.C. It was further contended by the
appellant that it is open for the accused to lead evidence
on their behalf after recording of the statements of the
accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
6. The application came to be rejected by the Sessions
Court on 31.8.2016. Being aggrieved by the same,
respondent No.3 herein filed Misc. Application No. 1123
of 2016 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order the
High Court allowed the said miscellaneous application.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant taking us through
the order of the Courts below, argued that entries made
in the police diary referred to in Section 172 of the
Cr.P.C. cannot be used for the purpose of Section 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless the conditions laid
down under Section 172(2) and (3) of Cr.P.C are satisfied;
that the High Court is not justified in allowing the
accused/respondent herein to produce certain pages of
police diary obtained by the respondent under the
provisions of Right to Information Act. He argued in
support of the order of the Trial Court.
8. Per contra, advocate for the respondent argued in
support of the order of the High Court contending that
the documents sought to be produced were for
confronting PW 15-Investigation Officer who is the author
of those documents; the defence will lose an opportunity
to confront the investigation officer, in case the
respondent is not allowed to produce the documents in
question. According to him, it is always open to the
accused to produce the documents to be relied upon by
him at the time of recording his statement under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. but the accused would not get chance
to confront the Investigation Officer with such
documents.
9. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to
note the provisions of Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section
145 of the Indian Evidence Act for deciding the issue
involved:-
“Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.
(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the
investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the
information reached him, the time at which he began and
closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him,
and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through
his investigation.
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a
case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use
such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in
such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to
call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see
them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but,
if they are used by the police officer who made them to
refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the
purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions
of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), shall apply,
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
145. Cross-examination as to previous statements
in writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to
previous statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in
question, without such writing being shown to him, or
being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by
the writing, his attention must, before the writing can
be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be
used for the purpose of contradicting him.”
10. The afore-mentioned provisions are to be read
conjointly and homogenously. It is evident from
sub-section (2) of Section 172 Cr.P.C., that the Trial
Court has unfettered power to call for and examine the
entries in the police diaries maintained by the
Investigating Officer. This is a very important safeguard.
The legislature has reposed complete trust in the Court
which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. If there is
any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the
evidence, the Court can use the entries made in the
diaries for the purposes of contradicting the police officer
as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. It
cannot be denied that Court trying the case is the best
guardian of interest of justice. Under sub-section (2) the
criminal court may send for diaries and may use them
not as evidence, but to aid it in an inquiry or trial. The
information which the Court may get from the entries in
such diaries usually will be utilized as foundation for
questions to be put to the police witness and the court
may, if necessary in its discretion use the entries to
contradict the police officer, who made them. But the
entries in the police diary are neither substantive nor
corroborative evidence, and that they cannot be used
against any other witness than against the police officer
that too for the limited extent indicated above.
11. Coming to the use of police diary by the accused,
sub-section (3) of Section 172 clearly lays down that
neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to
call for such diaries nor he or they may be entitled to see
them merely because they are referred to by the Court.
But, in case the police officer uses the entries in the
diaries to refresh his memory or if the Court uses them
for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, then
the provisions of Sections 145 and 161, as the case may
be, of the Evidence Act would apply. Section 145 of the
Evidence Act provides for cross examination of a witness
as to the previous statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing and if it was intended to contradict
him in writing, his attention must be called to those
portions which are to be used for the purpose of
contradiction. Section 161 deals with the adverse party’s
right as to the writing used to refresh memory. It can,
therefore, be seen that, the right of the accused to
cross-examine the police officer with reference to the
entries in the police diary is very much limited in extent
and even that limited scope arises only when the Court
uses the entries to contradict the police officer or when
the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory.
12. In other words, in case if the Court does not use
such entries for the purpose of contradicting the police
officer or if the police officer does not use the same for
refreshing his memory, then the question of accused
getting any right to use entries even to that limited
extent does not arise. The accused persons cannot force
the police officer to refresh his memory during his
examination in the Court by referring to the entries in the
police diary.
13. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act consists of
two limbs. It is provided in the first limb of Section 145
that a witness may be cross-examined as to the previous
statements made by him without such writing being
shown to him. But the Second limb provides that, if it is
intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention
must before writing can be proved, be called to those
parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of
contradicting him. Sections 155 (3) and 145 of Indian
Evidence Act deal with the different aspects of the same
matter and should, therefore, be read together.
14. Be that as it may, as mentioned supra, right of the
accused to cross examine the police officer with reference
to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in
extent and even that limited scope arises only when the
Court uses such entries to contradict the police officer or
when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory
and that again is subject to provisions of Sections 145
and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, a witness may
be cross-examined as to his previous statements made by
him as contemplated under Section 145 of the Evidence
Act if such previous statements are brought on record, in
accordance with law, before the Court and if the
contingencies as contemplated under Section 172(3) of
Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence
Act does not either extend or control the provisions of
Section 172 of Cr.P.C. We may hasten to add here itself
that there is no scope in Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. to
enable the Court, the prosecution or the accused to use
the police diary for the purpose of contradicting any
witness other than the police officer, who made it.
15. In case of Malkiat Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab1
, this Court while considering the scope of
Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. with reference to Section 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act observed thus:-
“It is manifest from its bare reading
without subjecting to detailed and critical
analysis that the case diary is only a
record of day to day investigation of the
investigating officer to ascertain the
statement of circumstances ascertained
through the investigation. Under
sub-section (2) the court is entitled at the
1. 1991(4) SCC 341
trial or enquiry to use the diary not as
evidence in the case, but as aid to it in
the inquiry or trial. Neither the accused,
nor his agent, by operation of sub-section
(3), shall be entitled to call for the diary,
nor shall he be entitled to use it as
evidence merely because the court
referred to it. Only right given thereunder
is that if the police officer who made the
entries in the diary uses it to refresh his
memory or if the court uses it for the
purpose of contradicting such witness, by
operation of Section 161 of the Code and
Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it shall
be used for the purpose of contradicting
the witness, i.e. Investigation Officer or to
explain it in re-examination by the
prosecution, with permission of the court.
It is, therefore, clear that unless the
investigating officer or the court uses it
either to refresh the memory or
contradicting the investigating officer as
previous statement under Section 161
that too after drawing his attention
thereto as is enjoined under Section 145
of the Evidence Act, the entries cannot be
used by the accused as evidence.”
16. The police diary is only a record of day to day
investigation made by the investigating officer. Neither
the accused nor his agent is entitled to call for such case
diary and also are not entitled to see them during the
course of inquiry or trial. The unfettered power conferred
by the Statute under Section 172 (2) of Cr.P.C. on the
court to examine the entries of the police diary would not
allow the accused to claim similar unfettered right to
inspect the case diary.
17. This Court in the case of Mukund Lal vs. Union of
India and Anr2
., while considering the question relating
to inspection of the entries made in the case diary by the
accused has observed thus:-
“We are of the opinion that the
provision embodied in sub-section (3) of
Section 172 of the CrPC cannot be
characterised as unreasonable or
arbitrary. Under sub-section (2) of
Section 172 CrPC the court itself has
the unfettered power to examine the
entries in the diaries. This is a very
important safeguard. The legislature
has reposed complete trust in the court
which is conducting the inquiry or the
trial. It has empowered the court to call
for any such relevant case diary; if
there is any inconsistency or
contradiction arising in the context of
the case diary the court can use the
entries for the purpose of contradicting
the police officer as provided in
sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the
CrPC. Ultimately there can be no better
custodian or guardian of the interest of
2 AIR 1989 SC 144
justice than the court trying the case.
No court will deny to itself the power to
make use of the entries in the diary to
the advantage of the accused by
contradicting the police officer with
reference to the contents of the diaries.
In view of this safeguard, the charge of
unreasonableness or arbitrariness
cannot stand scrutiny. The petitioners
claim an unfettered right to make
roving inspection of the entries in the
case diary regardless of whether these
entries are used by the police officer
concerned to refresh his memory or
regardless of the fact whether the court
has used these entries for the purpose
of contradicting such police officer. It
cannot be said that unless such
unfettered right is conferred and
recognised, the embargo engrafted in
sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the
CrPC would fail to meet the test of
reasonableness. For instance in the
case diary there might be a note as
regards the identity of the informant
who gave some information which
resulted in investigation into a
particular aspect. Public interest
demands that such an entry is not
made available to the accused for it
might endanger the safety of the
informants and it might deter the
informants from giving any information
to assist the investigating agency, as
observed in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor:
“The accused has no right to insist
upon a police witness referring to his
diary in order to elicit information
which is privileged. The contents of the
diary are not at the disposal of the
defence and cannot be used except
strictly in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 162 and 172.
Section 172 shows that witness may
refresh his memory by reference to
them but such use is at the discretion
of the witness and the judge, whose
duty it is to ensure that the privilege
attaching to them by statute is strictly
enforced.”
The public interest requirement from
the standpoint of the need to ensure a
fair trial for an accused is more than
sufficiently met by the power conferred
on the court, which is the ultimate
custodian of the interest of justice and
can always be trusted to be vigilant to
ensure that the interest of accused
persons standing the trial, is fully
safeguarded.”
18. From the afore-mentioned, it is clear that the denial
of right to the accused to inspect the case diary cannot
be characterized as unreasonable or arbitrary. The
confidentiality is always kept in the matter of
investigation and it is not desirable to make available the
police diary to the accused on his demand.
19. Since we are not called upon to decide the question
as to whether the copy of the case diary or a portion
thereof can be provided to the accused under the
provisions of the Right to Information Act, we are not
deciding the said question in the matter on hand. In the
case of Sidharth etc. etc. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 4352
, the
entire case diary maintained by the police was made
available to the accused by the trial Court. In that
context certain observations were made by this Court
which read thus:-
“….But if the entire case diary is made
available to the accused, it may cause serious
prejudice to others and even affect the safety
and security of those who may have given
statements to the police. The confidentiality is
always kept in the matter of criminal
investigation and it is not desirable to make
available the entire case diary to the accused.
In the instant case, we have noticed that the
entire case diary was given to the accused and
the investigating officer was extensively
cross-examined on many facts which were not
very much relevant for the purpose of the
case. The learned Sessions Judge should have
been careful in seeing that the trial of the case
was conducted in accordance with the
provisions of CrPC.”
20. Since in the matter on hand, neither the police
officer has refreshed his memory with reference to entries
in the police diary nor has the trial court used the entries
in the diary for the purposes of contradicting the police
officer (PW-15), it is not open for the accused to produce
certain pages of police diary obtained by him under the
provisions of Right to Information Act for the purpose of
contradicting the police officer.
21. In view of the above, the High Court is not justified
in permitting the accused to produce certain pages of
police diary at the time of cross examination of
PW-15/Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the impugned
Order is liable to be set aside and the same stands set
aside. The appeal is allowed.
…….…………………………..J.
(Dipak Misra)
…….…………………………..J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………………J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
New Delhi
Dated: April 19, 2017
Print Page
officer has refreshed his memory with reference to entries
in the police diary nor has the trial court used the entries
in the diary for the purposes of contradicting the police
officer (PW-15), it is not open for the accused to produce
certain pages of police diary obtained by him under the
provisions of Right to Information Act for the purpose of
contradicting the police officer.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 694 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9314 of 2016)
Balakram V State of Uttarakhand & Ors
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Dated: April 19, 2017.
Citation:(2017)7 SCC 668
Leave granted.
2. The judgment in Miscellaneous application No.
1123 of 2016, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand
at Nainital setting aside the order dated 31.8.2016 in I.A.
No. 174 Kha in S.T. No. 1 of 2015 is called on question in
this appeal.
3. Respondent No.3 herein, along with another
accused, is facing trial in ST No. 01 of 2015 before the
Sessions Court, Champawat for the offences punishable
under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. During the course of
the trial, after the completion of examination in chief of
PW-15, an application was filed by the respondent No.3
herein (one of the accused), the contents of which read
thus:-
“In the above mentioned case applicant wants to
submit some key and relevant documents which
are necessary for the fair and just trial of instant
case.
It is therefore, humbly prayed that your
Honour may kindly grant permission for the same
in the interest of justice.”
4. Along with the application, list of documents to be
produced was also filed. The documents are stated to be
copies of certain pages of Police diary maintained under
Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for
brevity, Cr.P.C.), by the Investigation Officer (PW-15),
which were obtained by respondent No.3 by making an
application under the provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005. The respondent No. 3 proposes to confront
PW 15 with those documents.
5. Such application was opposed by the appellant
herein/complainant on the ground that the fresh
documents cannot be allowed to be produced by the
accused at the premature stage of trial and it is always
open for the accused to produce such documents during
the stage of recording of statements of the accused under
Section 313, Cr.P.C. It was further contended by the
appellant that it is open for the accused to lead evidence
on their behalf after recording of the statements of the
accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C.
6. The application came to be rejected by the Sessions
Court on 31.8.2016. Being aggrieved by the same,
respondent No.3 herein filed Misc. Application No. 1123
of 2016 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order the
High Court allowed the said miscellaneous application.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant taking us through
the order of the Courts below, argued that entries made
in the police diary referred to in Section 172 of the
Cr.P.C. cannot be used for the purpose of Section 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless the conditions laid
down under Section 172(2) and (3) of Cr.P.C are satisfied;
that the High Court is not justified in allowing the
accused/respondent herein to produce certain pages of
police diary obtained by the respondent under the
provisions of Right to Information Act. He argued in
support of the order of the Trial Court.
8. Per contra, advocate for the respondent argued in
support of the order of the High Court contending that
the documents sought to be produced were for
confronting PW 15-Investigation Officer who is the author
of those documents; the defence will lose an opportunity
to confront the investigation officer, in case the
respondent is not allowed to produce the documents in
question. According to him, it is always open to the
accused to produce the documents to be relied upon by
him at the time of recording his statement under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. but the accused would not get chance
to confront the Investigation Officer with such
documents.
9. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to
note the provisions of Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section
145 of the Indian Evidence Act for deciding the issue
involved:-
“Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973
172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.
(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this
Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the
investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the
information reached him, the time at which he began and
closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him,
and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through
his investigation.
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a
case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use
such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in
such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to
call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see
them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but,
if they are used by the police officer who made them to
refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the
purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions
of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872 ), shall apply,
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
145. Cross-examination as to previous statements
in writing.—A witness may be cross-examined as to
previous statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in
question, without such writing being shown to him, or
being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by
the writing, his attention must, before the writing can
be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be
used for the purpose of contradicting him.”
10. The afore-mentioned provisions are to be read
conjointly and homogenously. It is evident from
sub-section (2) of Section 172 Cr.P.C., that the Trial
Court has unfettered power to call for and examine the
entries in the police diaries maintained by the
Investigating Officer. This is a very important safeguard.
The legislature has reposed complete trust in the Court
which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. If there is
any inconsistency or contradiction arising in the
evidence, the Court can use the entries made in the
diaries for the purposes of contradicting the police officer
as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. It
cannot be denied that Court trying the case is the best
guardian of interest of justice. Under sub-section (2) the
criminal court may send for diaries and may use them
not as evidence, but to aid it in an inquiry or trial. The
information which the Court may get from the entries in
such diaries usually will be utilized as foundation for
questions to be put to the police witness and the court
may, if necessary in its discretion use the entries to
contradict the police officer, who made them. But the
entries in the police diary are neither substantive nor
corroborative evidence, and that they cannot be used
against any other witness than against the police officer
that too for the limited extent indicated above.
11. Coming to the use of police diary by the accused,
sub-section (3) of Section 172 clearly lays down that
neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to
call for such diaries nor he or they may be entitled to see
them merely because they are referred to by the Court.
But, in case the police officer uses the entries in the
diaries to refresh his memory or if the Court uses them
for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, then
the provisions of Sections 145 and 161, as the case may
be, of the Evidence Act would apply. Section 145 of the
Evidence Act provides for cross examination of a witness
as to the previous statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing and if it was intended to contradict
him in writing, his attention must be called to those
portions which are to be used for the purpose of
contradiction. Section 161 deals with the adverse party’s
right as to the writing used to refresh memory. It can,
therefore, be seen that, the right of the accused to
cross-examine the police officer with reference to the
entries in the police diary is very much limited in extent
and even that limited scope arises only when the Court
uses the entries to contradict the police officer or when
the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory.
12. In other words, in case if the Court does not use
such entries for the purpose of contradicting the police
officer or if the police officer does not use the same for
refreshing his memory, then the question of accused
getting any right to use entries even to that limited
extent does not arise. The accused persons cannot force
the police officer to refresh his memory during his
examination in the Court by referring to the entries in the
police diary.
13. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act consists of
two limbs. It is provided in the first limb of Section 145
that a witness may be cross-examined as to the previous
statements made by him without such writing being
shown to him. But the Second limb provides that, if it is
intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention
must before writing can be proved, be called to those
parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of
contradicting him. Sections 155 (3) and 145 of Indian
Evidence Act deal with the different aspects of the same
matter and should, therefore, be read together.
14. Be that as it may, as mentioned supra, right of the
accused to cross examine the police officer with reference
to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in
extent and even that limited scope arises only when the
Court uses such entries to contradict the police officer or
when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory
and that again is subject to provisions of Sections 145
and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, a witness may
be cross-examined as to his previous statements made by
him as contemplated under Section 145 of the Evidence
Act if such previous statements are brought on record, in
accordance with law, before the Court and if the
contingencies as contemplated under Section 172(3) of
Cr.P.C. are fulfilled. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence
Act does not either extend or control the provisions of
Section 172 of Cr.P.C. We may hasten to add here itself
that there is no scope in Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. to
enable the Court, the prosecution or the accused to use
the police diary for the purpose of contradicting any
witness other than the police officer, who made it.
15. In case of Malkiat Singh and others vs. State of
Punjab1
, this Court while considering the scope of
Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. with reference to Section 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act observed thus:-
“It is manifest from its bare reading
without subjecting to detailed and critical
analysis that the case diary is only a
record of day to day investigation of the
investigating officer to ascertain the
statement of circumstances ascertained
through the investigation. Under
sub-section (2) the court is entitled at the
1. 1991(4) SCC 341
trial or enquiry to use the diary not as
evidence in the case, but as aid to it in
the inquiry or trial. Neither the accused,
nor his agent, by operation of sub-section
(3), shall be entitled to call for the diary,
nor shall he be entitled to use it as
evidence merely because the court
referred to it. Only right given thereunder
is that if the police officer who made the
entries in the diary uses it to refresh his
memory or if the court uses it for the
purpose of contradicting such witness, by
operation of Section 161 of the Code and
Section 145 of the Evidence Act, it shall
be used for the purpose of contradicting
the witness, i.e. Investigation Officer or to
explain it in re-examination by the
prosecution, with permission of the court.
It is, therefore, clear that unless the
investigating officer or the court uses it
either to refresh the memory or
contradicting the investigating officer as
previous statement under Section 161
that too after drawing his attention
thereto as is enjoined under Section 145
of the Evidence Act, the entries cannot be
used by the accused as evidence.”
16. The police diary is only a record of day to day
investigation made by the investigating officer. Neither
the accused nor his agent is entitled to call for such case
diary and also are not entitled to see them during the
course of inquiry or trial. The unfettered power conferred
by the Statute under Section 172 (2) of Cr.P.C. on the
court to examine the entries of the police diary would not
allow the accused to claim similar unfettered right to
inspect the case diary.
17. This Court in the case of Mukund Lal vs. Union of
India and Anr2
., while considering the question relating
to inspection of the entries made in the case diary by the
accused has observed thus:-
“We are of the opinion that the
provision embodied in sub-section (3) of
Section 172 of the CrPC cannot be
characterised as unreasonable or
arbitrary. Under sub-section (2) of
Section 172 CrPC the court itself has
the unfettered power to examine the
entries in the diaries. This is a very
important safeguard. The legislature
has reposed complete trust in the court
which is conducting the inquiry or the
trial. It has empowered the court to call
for any such relevant case diary; if
there is any inconsistency or
contradiction arising in the context of
the case diary the court can use the
entries for the purpose of contradicting
the police officer as provided in
sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the
CrPC. Ultimately there can be no better
custodian or guardian of the interest of
2 AIR 1989 SC 144
justice than the court trying the case.
No court will deny to itself the power to
make use of the entries in the diary to
the advantage of the accused by
contradicting the police officer with
reference to the contents of the diaries.
In view of this safeguard, the charge of
unreasonableness or arbitrariness
cannot stand scrutiny. The petitioners
claim an unfettered right to make
roving inspection of the entries in the
case diary regardless of whether these
entries are used by the police officer
concerned to refresh his memory or
regardless of the fact whether the court
has used these entries for the purpose
of contradicting such police officer. It
cannot be said that unless such
unfettered right is conferred and
recognised, the embargo engrafted in
sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the
CrPC would fail to meet the test of
reasonableness. For instance in the
case diary there might be a note as
regards the identity of the informant
who gave some information which
resulted in investigation into a
particular aspect. Public interest
demands that such an entry is not
made available to the accused for it
might endanger the safety of the
informants and it might deter the
informants from giving any information
to assist the investigating agency, as
observed in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor:
“The accused has no right to insist
upon a police witness referring to his
diary in order to elicit information
which is privileged. The contents of the
diary are not at the disposal of the
defence and cannot be used except
strictly in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 162 and 172.
Section 172 shows that witness may
refresh his memory by reference to
them but such use is at the discretion
of the witness and the judge, whose
duty it is to ensure that the privilege
attaching to them by statute is strictly
enforced.”
The public interest requirement from
the standpoint of the need to ensure a
fair trial for an accused is more than
sufficiently met by the power conferred
on the court, which is the ultimate
custodian of the interest of justice and
can always be trusted to be vigilant to
ensure that the interest of accused
persons standing the trial, is fully
safeguarded.”
18. From the afore-mentioned, it is clear that the denial
of right to the accused to inspect the case diary cannot
be characterized as unreasonable or arbitrary. The
confidentiality is always kept in the matter of
investigation and it is not desirable to make available the
police diary to the accused on his demand.
19. Since we are not called upon to decide the question
as to whether the copy of the case diary or a portion
thereof can be provided to the accused under the
provisions of the Right to Information Act, we are not
deciding the said question in the matter on hand. In the
case of Sidharth etc. etc. vs. State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 4352
, the
entire case diary maintained by the police was made
available to the accused by the trial Court. In that
context certain observations were made by this Court
which read thus:-
“….But if the entire case diary is made
available to the accused, it may cause serious
prejudice to others and even affect the safety
and security of those who may have given
statements to the police. The confidentiality is
always kept in the matter of criminal
investigation and it is not desirable to make
available the entire case diary to the accused.
In the instant case, we have noticed that the
entire case diary was given to the accused and
the investigating officer was extensively
cross-examined on many facts which were not
very much relevant for the purpose of the
case. The learned Sessions Judge should have
been careful in seeing that the trial of the case
was conducted in accordance with the
provisions of CrPC.”
20. Since in the matter on hand, neither the police
officer has refreshed his memory with reference to entries
in the police diary nor has the trial court used the entries
in the diary for the purposes of contradicting the police
officer (PW-15), it is not open for the accused to produce
certain pages of police diary obtained by him under the
provisions of Right to Information Act for the purpose of
contradicting the police officer.
21. In view of the above, the High Court is not justified
in permitting the accused to produce certain pages of
police diary at the time of cross examination of
PW-15/Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the impugned
Order is liable to be set aside and the same stands set
aside. The appeal is allowed.
…….…………………………..J.
(Dipak Misra)
…….…………………………..J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………………J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
New Delhi
Dated: April 19, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment