Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police- PART XVIII

Ans. No. Both of them are not substantive evidence. (Vide—

• Para 6 of Munshi Prasad v. State of Bihar (2002) 1 SCC 351 = AIR 2001 SC 3031 – U. C. Banerjee, K. G. Balakrishnan - JJ;
• Sambhu Das v. State of Assam (2010) 10 SCC 374 = AIR 2010 SC 3300 – Dr. M. K. Sharma, H. L. Dattu – JJ.
• Para 13 of Madhu @ Madhuranatha v. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 419 = AIR 2014 SC 394 – Dr. B. S. Chauhan, S. A. Bobde – JJ.)
• Inquest report is not an evidence by itself. (Vide Babu Poojari v. State of Karnataka 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 304 = 1993 SCC (Cri) 997 – K. Jayachandra Reddy, G. N. Ray – JJ.)

Q.87 Are not post-mortem report and inquest report “public documents” and is not the accused entitled to inspect or receive their copies during the stage of investigation?

Ans. No. They are not public documents and the accused is not entitled to inspect or receive copies of those reports during the stage of investigation. (Vide State v. Gian Singh 1981 Cri.L.J. 538 (Delhi) – M. Jain – J.)

Accused will be entitled to copies in the interests of fair trial, but only at the proper time. (Vide Palaniswamy Vaiyapuri v. State AIR 1968 Bombay 127 = 1968 Cri.L.J. 453 Bombay – Naik – J.)

Q.88 Are not the statements in the “inquest report” as to what the SHO saw and found on the dead body, hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C?

Ans. No. What is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C is only that statement of the SHO made in the inquest report as to what he heard or gathered from others. What he actually perceived by his senses from the dead body, is not hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. (Vide George v. State of Kerala (1998) 4 SCC 605 = AIR 1998 SC 1376 – M. K. Mukherjee, S. S. Mohammed Quadri – JJ.)

Q.89 Are the statements of witnesses recorded by a police officer at the time of inquest during an “inquiry” under Section 174 Cr.P.C, subject to the embargo under Section 162 Cr.P.C ?

Ans. Yes.

• It is really an investigation under Chapter XII as indicated by Section 175 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the statements of witnesses recorded by the police officer at the time of inquest will be hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. (Vide Datar Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 4 SCC 272 = AIR 1974 SC 1193 – M. H. Beg, Y. V. Chandrachud - JJ; Periasami v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 457 = 1997 Cri.L.J. 219 – Dr. A. S. Anand, K. T. Thomas - JJ).
• Inquest Panchanama cannot be treated as statement of witness recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he is supposed to narrate the facts seen by him. Hence non-disclosure by the witness to the investigating officer of the fact that he had seen the accused running away from the place where the dead body was lying, was held to be not unnatural nor in any way affecting the veracity of his deposition before Court. (Vide para 31 of Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal (2010) 2 SCC 583 – J. M. Panchal, T. S. Thakur – JJ.)
• Absence of PW 20 in the site plan, does not negate her presence or establish that she had not witnessed the incident particularly when she had given her statement to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the date of occurrence itself. (Vide para 73 of Manu Sharma v. State (NCT Of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 – P. Sathasivam, Swatanter Kumar – JJ.)

Q.90 Is not the credibility of the prosecution eroded in a case where the Investigating Officer who held only the inquest, was not examined and the inquest report prepared by him was marked without objection ?

Part 16: Questions & Answers By Justice V. Ramkumar- Investigation By Police- PART XVI