Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1293 (MP)

Ram Khilawan Patel v. State of M. P.

2005-12-16

RAKESH SAKSENA

body2005
ORDER 1. Applicant, who is an accused in S.T. No. 739/01 pending before the Special Court of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Satna, has filed this revision against the order dated 21.5.2003, whereby his application for supplying the copy of the statements of witnesses recorded by SDO (P) was dismissed. During investigation of the case, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under section 161 CrPC. On the request of the accused, re-investigation of the case was also done by the SDO (P), Maihar and in that course statements of about 15 witnesses were recorded by him. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. Before the trial Court applicant had earlier moved an application for supplying the copies of the statements recorded by the SDO (P) during re-investigation. His application was dismissed by the trial Court. Against that order, the applicant had filed a revision before the High Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 1189/02. That revision was disposed of on 19.10.2002 with the observations that the applicant may file fresh application before the trial Court accompanied by previous orders of the High Court, relevant on the point and the trial Court shall consider his application in the light of those precedents. 2. The applicant moved fresh application on 28.12.2002 before the trial Court annexing copies of the order passed in Criminal Revision No. 483/1981 Ramkaran Gupta v. State of M.P. and Criminal Revision No. 13/96 (G) Naresh Dhakad v. State of M.P. decided on 29.2.1996. Learned trial Court, after due consideration of the facts of the case and the precedents cited by the applicant, dismissed his application by the impugned order, aggrieved whereby, the applicant has filed this revision. As per the grounds taken in the revision memo, the applicant had contended that the trial Court should have supplied the copies of the statements of all the witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer or the SDO (P) during the investigation or the re-investigation of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector submitted that the accused was entitled to obtain the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, only on which the prosecution proposes to rely during the trial and not of all the statements. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the objector submitted that the accused was entitled to obtain the copies of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, only on which the prosecution proposes to rely during the trial and not of all the statements. 4. In Naresh Dhakad v. State of M.P. [1997 (1) MPWN 81], it was held that if the investigating agency had recorded the statements of witnesses more than once there may be material contradictions in the same and the accused may like to utilize the same for his benefit, therefore, the copies of the statement of such witnesses should be provided to him because due to non-supply of the copies, the purpose for enacting the provision of section 207 CrPC shall be frustrated. 5. It is settled position that the statements of all the persons on whom the prosecution proposes to rely, recorded by the investigating agency more than once, the copies of the same should be supplied to the accused. However, it is not incumbent on the Court to supply the copies of the statements of all the persons recorded during the investigation whom the prosecution does not propose to examine. 6. Learned trial Court has observed that the copy of the statement of witness Deepak Patel, who was shown as an eye witness in the charge-sheet, was supplied to accused as his statement was again recorded by the SDO (P) during re-investigation, whereas other persons were not shown as prosecution witnesses in the charge-sheet. 7. On due consideration of the facts and the circumstances of the case and the legal position as discussed above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.