"It Might Be A Political Hot Potato, But Legally Nothing": Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Police's Plea In Chief Secy. Assault Case
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court order which allowed CM Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy CM Manish Sisodia's plea to provide statement of witnesses in the 2018 alleged assault of then-CS Anshu Prakash."It is the basic principle of natural justice, it is common sense that the accused must have the copy. It might be a political...
The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court order which allowed CM Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy CM Manish Sisodia's plea to provide statement of witnesses in the 2018 alleged assault of then-CS Anshu Prakash.
The Delhi High Court had on October 21, 2020 set aside the 24 July, 2019 Order of the Trial Court wherein the Court did not allow Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Minister Manish Sisodia to access crucial documents without following the procedure as prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Chief Secretary Assault Case
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait presided over the matter.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Petitioner herein had filed an Application under Section 207 of CrPC for supply of certain deficient documents, including the copy of the statement of one witness, VK Jain recorded on 21st February, 2018, and the audio/video recording of the examination of the Petitioners.
The Trial Court declined to supply the copy of the statement of VK Jain and held that as per prosecution, no statement under Section 161 of CrPC was recorded on 21.02.2018 and therefore, the same could not be supplied.
A Revision Petition was accordingly filed before the Trial Court, but the same was disposed of stating that as it was a record of oral examination by the IO and was noted in the case diary, it could not constitute a statement under Section 161 and therefore, could not be given to the accused. However, it could be used during the trail as an aid by the Court.
Further, as the Revisionists could not show any provision of law entitling them to their own statements during interrogation, this prayer was also declined, with the liberty to call for the recordings during the trial if the same was deemed necessary for production by the Trial Court.
Justice Kait heard the arguments and considered the question as to whether the statement of VK Jain recorded on 21st February, 2018, amounted to a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code.
The Court noted that it was not in dispute that VK Jain had been called on 21.02.2018 and was examined by the IO which was then recorded in the case diary. It was also noted that the Case Diary itself stated that the witness had been examined in depth and that a report had been prepared.
Justice Kait then refers to Section 161 of the Code and the case of Ashutosh Verma v. CBI (2014) to observe that even at the stage of scrutiny of documents under Section 207, the Court shall supply all the documents to the accused, even if the same is not relied upon by the Prosecution.
"Further observed that the accused can ask for the documents that withheld his defence and would be prevented from properly defending himself, until all the evidence collected during the course of investigation is given to the accused. Also observed that if there is a situation that arises wherein an accused seeks documents which support his case and do not support the case of prosecution and IO ignores these documents and forward only those documents which favours the prosecution, in such a scenario, it would be the duty of IO to make such documents available to the accused".
The Court then goes on to agree with the submissions of senior advocate for the petitioners before it that it is the bounden duty of the police officer to forward all the statements to the Magistrate, without any exception so as to enable the Magistrate to discharge his duty under Section 207 of the Code by furnishing copies of such documents to the accused.
"It cannot be disputed that the duty of the investigating agency is to do free and fair investigation by bringing to the notice of the Court all the evidences collected during the investigation without pick and choose the one which does not support them".
Therefore, noting that if the statement was not taken into consideration at the time of passing the order on charge which was a part of the police record, it could then not be relied upon during the trial and the accused would not be able to benefit from the same.
The judgment concludes with an observation on the issue of source of document and states that if the evidence is relevant, it is admissible irrespective of how it is obtained.
Finding merits in the present plea, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court.
"Consequently, the Trial Court is directed to consider the statement dated 21.02.2018 of VK Jain, which is part of 'Case Diary' and placed on record by the accused, at the time of passing the order on Charge".