Will Supply Witness Statements As Charges Have Now Been Framed: CBI To Supreme Court On Kalyani Singh's Plea In Sippy Sidhu Murder Case

On a favorable statement being made by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court today disposed of a plea filed by Kalyani Singh, the prime accused in national-level shooter and lawyer Sippy Sidhu's murder case, for supply of witness statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC by Chandigarh Police.

The bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan was hearing Kalyani's challenge to an order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in April 2024, dismissing her plea for supply of two documents forming part of seizure memo. Reportedly, these included case diary, supervision notes, etc.

During the hearing, Advocate Zoheb Hossain for CBI submitted on instructions that the impugned order was passed at Section 207 CrPC stage. However, now charges gave been framed and Kalyani can take recourse of Section 91 (summons to produce document or thing), which plea the agency would not oppose.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Kalyani, submitted that witness statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded by Chandigarh Police, but when the case was transferred to CBI, the agency did not make them part of the charge sheet. He pressed that Kalyani had a right to access the unrelied documents. On the court's inclination to pass an order based on Hossain's statement, the senior counsel prayed that the statement may be recorded. Accordingly, the order was passed.

On Hossain mentioning that the question of a person's right to seek unrelied documents is pending before the Supreme Court, the bench clarified that its order was passed in peculiar facts of the case. CBI shall supply the documents within a period of 2 weeks, it directed.

The following observation by Justice Maheshwari while hearing merits mention, "You know...in a case diary, number of parchas are there...those are confidential. In what manner investigation has been proceeded with and how and in what manner the informations have been received by the IO, this all is gathered in the case diary as required under Section 172. That cannot be [provided]...so far as statements part is concerned, we can understand."

Notably, the matter first came up before a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, who recused and directed that it be listed before another Bench.

Background

Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu, alias Sippy Sidhu, was a national-level shooter and lawyer who was shot dead by unknown assailants in September 2015 at a park in Chandigarh. Statedly, one of the assailants was Kalyani Singh, daughter of a retired Punjab and Haryana High Court judge - Justice Sabina, whose marriage proposal was turned down by Sidhu.

In compliance of an order passed by Home Secretary, UT Administration, Chandigarh in 2016, the probe in the case was transferred from Chandigarh Police to CBI.

In June 2022, Kalyani was arrested by the agency, after it filed an application seeking police remand before Special Judge, stating that on completion of investigation, a final report u/s 173 CrPC was filed in 2020 and the agency wanted to take up further investigation wrt the role of Kalyani & others in Sidhu's murder.

It was CBI's case that Kalyani and Sippy were in a close relationship and she wanted to marry him. However, when her proposal was rejected by Sidhu's family, he allegedly leaked some of her objectionable photographs to her parents and friends, which caused embarrassment to her family. Being annoyed with the leaking of pictures and declining of the marriage proposal, Kalyani conspired towards his murder.

The agency alleges that Kalyani compelled Sippy to meet her in a park, where she was present with an unknown assailant. Thereafter, she killed him by using firearms and fled the spot.

In 2022, Kalyani was granted bail by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Recently, on May 3 (2024), a special CBI Court framed murder charges against her. The trial is set to begin from July 2.

The instant proceedings came before the Supreme Court in view of an application filed by Kalyani before the CBI court for supply of all documents relied upon by the prosecution. The same was rejected by the CBI Court, leading Kalyani to appeal the order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court ruled in her favor in 2023, staying framing of charges until she was supplied with the data.

The High Court order in turn was assailed by CBI before the Supreme Court, which granted a stay in December 2023. However, the top Court made it clear that framing of charges would be subject to outcome of the case.

Soon after, Kalyani moved the CBI Court for supply of documents relied upon by the prosecution and supplied to the mother of deceased victim-Sidhu. The plea, when eventually raised before the Supreme Court, led to the following order:

“When this case was last listed on February 22, 2024, the accused contended that the prosecution has withheld materials that were furnished to the victim's mother. The additional solicitor general (appearing for CBI) has received instruction and submitted that the documents that were furnished to the victim's mother will also be furnished to the accused...If the accused makes further application for furnishing any other relevant material, the trial court judge, in order to ensure fairness in the prosecution of the case, will consider such application, in accordance with law.”

With this order, the earlier proceedings before the Supreme Court were closed. In April, 2024, the CBI Court rejected Kalyani's application. Vide the impugned order, the High Court dismissed Kalyani's plea under Section 482 CrPC for supply of the documents. Aggrieved by the dismissal, she moved the Supreme Court.

Punjab & Haryana High Court Proceedings

Before the High Court, Kalyani claimed that the two documents sought by her were part of the seizure memo, which was relied upon by the prosecution, and were supplied to the mother of deceased victim-Sidhu.

CBI, on the other hand, claimed that Kalyani could not be given access to those documents (including case diary) in view of an embargo under Section 172(3) CrPC. It was submitted that the sought documents were not 'relied upon' and the family of the deceased had also not been supplied with the same.

After hearing the parties, the High Court observed that, "the applicability of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. is limited to supplying the accused with documents and materials only 'relied upon' by the prosecution".

It noted that in compliance of the Supreme Court's order, Kalyani had already been furnished with all the materials 'relied upon' by the prosecution, a list of 'unrelied documents', and all the documents which had been supplied to the family of the deceased.

Going through the material on record, the High Court also observed that documents sought by Kalyani did not find mention in the list of documents and articles 'relied upon' by the CBI in the charge sheet as well as the 'untrace report' filed by it. Further, only materials/articles/documents 'relied upon' by CBI in its 'untraced report' had been supplied to the mother of the deceased.

Refusing to allow Kalyani access to the sought documents, the High Court said,

"Granting such broad access could potentially compromise public interest, especially when sensitive information like the identity of the informants is recorded in the case diary. Allowing unrestricted access to such information could endanger the safety of informants and also discourage cooperation with law enforcement agencies. Therefore, the restriction outlined in Sub Section (3) of Section 172 Cr.P.C. is essential to uphold the integrity of the legal processes and safeguard public interest".

So far as the prayer for supply of case diaries/police file maintained by the Chandigarh Police during the initial stages of investigation, the High Court opined that a statutory disentitlement prevailed under Section 172(3) of the CrPC.

"Although an accused may, under certain circumstances, have the right to peruse prior statements recorded in a police officer's diary under Section 145 or 161 of the Evidence Act, however, this right is hindered by the constraints imposed by Section 172(3) of the Cr.P.C., and cannot thus be availed of, by the accused at this initial stage, under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C."

Case Title: Kalyani Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, SLP(Crl) No. 7260/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order