Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2088 (RAJ)

Gurtej Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-08

KRISHAN KUMAR ACHARYA

body2005
Judgment K.K. Acharya, J.-Heard. Issue notice. 2. Mr. J.P.S. Choudhary, learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the State. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at admission stage. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in this case, prior to lodging the FIR, a marg report was registered and investigation was started by Sade Khan, S.I. under Section 174, CrPC. During these proceedings, the documents were prepared and statements of witnesses were also recorded. Thereafter, the matter was investigated by another Investigating Officer namely Vipin Kumar, C.I. However, again investigation was transferred to Rajendra Singh, C.I. who submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner as well two other persons for the offence under Sections 306 IPC. He produced only the statements which have been recorded by him alongwith the charge-sheet. The statements which were recoded by Vipin Kumar, C.I. as well as Sade Khan, S.I. during the investigation were not produced alongwith the charge-sheet. He further states that petitioner moved an application before the trial Court to take on record the statements which were recorded by Sade Khan, S.I. under Section 174, CrPC, as well as the statements recorded by Vipin Kumar under Section 161, CrPC. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, rejected the application of the petitioner stating that statements which have been sought to be produced on record, are not relevant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that said evidence is also relevant and helpful at the time of cross-examination. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. 6. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the order impugned. It appears that learned Additional Sessions Judge while rejecting the application of the petitioner, has not applied his mind in true prospect and rejected the application the application of the petitioner. The statements recorded by Sade Khan, S.I. under Section 174, CrPC, and statements recorded by Vipin Kumar under Section 161, CrPC, are relevant for the purpose of cross-examination. Therefore, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 05.07.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar is quashed and set aside. Therefore, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Accordingly, this misc. petition is allowed and the order dated 05.07.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar is quashed and set aside. The trial Court is directed to call for the complete statements recorded by Sade Khan, S.I. under Section 174, CrPC, and statements recorded by Vipin Kumar, C.I. under Section 161, CrPC, and supply the copies of the statements to the accused-petitioner which have been demanded by him in his application.