Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1987 DIGILAW 80 (GUJ)

Hamidulla v. STATE OF GUJARAT

1987-09-03

D.C.GHEEWALA, J.P.DESAI

body1987
J. P. DESAI, J. ( 1 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 2 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 3 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 4 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 5 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 6 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 7 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 8 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 9 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 10 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 11 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 12 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 13 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 14 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 15 ) X x x x x x x x x. ] ( 16 ) BEFORE parting with this judgment, we are constrained to observe here that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge committed an error in bringing on record in the evidence of P. S. I. Sajjansinh Parmar P. W. 19 Exh. 71 what came to the knowledge of the said officer during the investigation of other Sessions case. In the evidence of said P. S. I. , it is stated at para 3 as follows :- ( 17 ) P. S. I. should not have (been) permitted to state in the evidence recorded in Sessions Case No. 6/86 what came to his knowledge during the course of the investigation of other case. The learned Judge fell in error in allowing this to be brought on record of this case. ( 18 ) IT is also stated by P. S. I. Sajjansinh Parmar at para 4 as follows :- ( 19 ) THIS is also not permissible. Any part of a statement of a witness before the Investigating Officer can be brought on record only by way of contradiction as per S. 162 of the Code. ( 18 ) IT is also stated by P. S. I. Sajjansinh Parmar at para 4 as follows :- ( 19 ) THIS is also not permissible. Any part of a statement of a witness before the Investigating Officer can be brought on record only by way of contradiction as per S. 162 of the Code. What came to the knowledge of the investigating Officer while recording the statement of a witness cannot be allowed to be brought on record as allowed in the present case by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. A question is first required to be put to the witness about the contradiction, if any, between the evidence of the witness and his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and if the witness denies then that contradiction has to be proved by the evidence of Police Officer who has to look into the statement of the witness and give reply in that regard. A general statement as is brought on record at para 4 of the deposition of P. S. L could not and should not have been permitted. Appeal allowed. .