2017 (4) TMI 1466 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking to submit some key and relevant documents by applicant - copies of certain pages of Police diary maintained Under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - 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, Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - It is evident from Sub-section (2) of Section 172 Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 Code of Criminal Procedure. It cannot be denied that Court trying the case is the best guardian of interest of justice. 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. 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 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. 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 Code of Criminal Procedure 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. Thus, 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 - 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. 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 - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused can produce certain pages of the police diary obtained under the Right to Information Act during the trial.
2. The extent to which the accused can use entries in the police diary for cross-examination purposes.
3. The interpretation and application of Sections 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the accused can produce certain pages of the police diary obtained under the Right to Information Act during the trial:
The accused, in this case, sought to introduce documents from the police diary obtained via the Right to Information Act. The trial court rejected this application, and the High Court subsequently allowed it. The Supreme Court, however, held that the accused cannot produce certain pages of the police diary for the purpose of contradicting the police officer unless specific conditions are met. The Court emphasized that the police diary is a confidential document meant to aid the court, not the accused, and its use is strictly regulated under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The extent to which the accused can use entries in the police diary for cross-examination purposes:
The judgment clarified that the accused's right to use the police diary for cross-examination is limited. Under Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused can only use the diary if the police officer uses it to refresh his memory or if the court uses it to contradict the police officer. The Supreme Court reiterated that the accused cannot force the police officer to use the diary to refresh his memory, nor can they demand to see the diary merely because it has been referred to by the court.

3. The interpretation and application of Sections 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and 145 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The Court provided an in-depth analysis of Sections 172 and 145. Section 172(2) allows the court to call for and use the police diary to aid in the trial, but not as evidence. Section 172(3) restricts the accused's access to the diary unless it is used by the police officer to refresh his memory or by the court to contradict the officer. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act allows a witness to be cross-examined on previous written statements, but only if specific conditions are met. The Court concluded that these provisions must be read together to understand the limited scope under which the accused can use the police diary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order permitting the accused to produce certain pages of the police diary. The Court held that the accused's right to use the police diary is very limited and strictly regulated to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of the investigation process. The appeal was allowed, and the accused was not permitted to use the police diary obtained under the Right to Information Act for cross-examination purposes.