9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Constitutional validity of Section 172(3) of the CrPC challenged in relation to the rights of the accused to access case diaries. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the constitutional validity of Section 172(3) of the CrPC, which restricts the accused or their agents from accessing case diaries unless used by the police officer to refresh memory or by the court to contradict the officer. The High Court upheld the provision's validity, emphasizing that the accused have other avenues to challenge the contents of the diary during trial, ensuring their rights are protected. The Court highlighted that the accused can cross-examine the investigating officer based on diary entries and request the court to verify facts if there are doubts. The Court affirmed that the provision is not unreasonable or arbitrary, as it entrusts the court with the power to examine diaries and protect the interests of justice. The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding the interests of both the accused and the public in criminal trials. It emphasizes that the court, as the ultimate custodian of justice, can be trusted to ensure a fair trial by using diary entries judiciously. The Court rejected the argument that accused should have unrestricted access to case diaries, citing public interest concerns such as protecting informants and maintaining confidentiality of investigative reports. The judgment also highlights that Section 172 of the CrPC forms a cohesive scheme, with Clause (3) being an integral part subject to the conditions set forth in Clause (1). Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of Section 172(3) while dismissing the challenge raised by the accused. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the reasoning of the High Court and rejected the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 172(3) of the CrPC. The judgment underscores the balance between protecting the rights of the accused and upholding public interest in criminal investigations. It emphasizes the role of the court in ensuring a fair trial and justifies the restrictions on access to case diaries under the provisions of the law. The Court's decision rests on the premise that the existing legal framework provides adequate safeguards for the accused while serving the broader interests of justice and public welfare.
|
