Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1313 (PNJ)

Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana

2012-09-26

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: (Oral) - Crl. Misc. No.57613 of 2012 Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for. Crl. Misc. No.M-30029 of 2012 1. This is a petition brought by Raj Kumar, the petitioner under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 06.09.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa whereby the prayer of the petitioner for supplying some documents to him had been declined. 2. As would be evident from the copy of order dated 06.09.2012, the petitioner made application for supplying the following documents:- 1- Statement made by Aarti to Additional Superintendent of Police on 24.06.2011; 2- Statement made by Aarti to police at Police Station City Hisar on 22.06.2011; 3- Statement of Sub Inspector Gopi Chand dated 26.06.2011 made by him as investigating officer of the case; 4- Copies of the record prepared by police at Police Station City Hisar on 22.06.2011 with respect to Aarti. 3. It was prayed that the said documents are required for conducting cross-examination upon the prosecutrix. 4. The application was opposed by the State. After hearing arguments, learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa declined the prayer made in the application vide the impugned order. 5. I have heard Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the contents of para no.2 of the order at page 18 of the paper book where it has been mentioned that statement of Gopi Chand, SI already stands delivered to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that with regard to the statement of the prosecutrix alleged to be recorded by Additional Superintendent of Police on 24.06.2011, it was observed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa that no such statement was ever recorded. According to him, observing further that if any statement has been recorded in the form of police diary, copy of the same cannot be supplied as per the provisions of section 172 Cr.P.C. He has further submitted that regarding the statement made by the prosecutrix at Police Station City Hisar on 22.06.2011, learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa has further observed that no such statement has been recorded. According to him, learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa has, thus, declined to get the required copies delivered on the ground that their existence is not proved. 8. According to him, learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa has, thus, declined to get the required copies delivered on the ground that their existence is not proved. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the statement dated 22.06.2011 made by Aarti to the police at Police Station City Hisar is clearly discernible from the contents of the FIR. On 22.06.2011 she claims in the FIR to have come to senses at Hisar Bus Stand and therefrom she was taken to Police Station City Hisar by the police officers where she told phone number of her house and also the mobile phone of her father. According to him, she further says that then she got recorded the names of two boys namely Raj Kumar and Dr.Dharamvir and she told the mobile phone number of Dr. Dharamvir to the police. 9. The police at Police Station City Hisar did not register a case. She only tells in the FIR that she told the phone number of her house and her father as also the names of Raj Kumar and Dr. Dharamvir and gave phone number of the latter. It is not evident from the FIR that she gave the names of two boys i.e. Raj Kumar and Dr. Dharamvir as culprits or had even told the police there as to what they did to her. Nothing is evident in this FIR that any statement of Aarti was recorded by the police there. 10. There is nothing on the record to establish recording of any statement of the prosecutrix by Additional Superintendent of Police during his visit to the village of the prosecutrix. There is difference between a statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. or some notes made in the police diary. Learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa has rightly observed that anything recorded by Additional Superintendent of Police in the police diary would not amount to a statement , a copy of which could be given to the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no quarrel with the mandate of section 172 Cr.P.C. under which the accused does not have even a right to examine the case diary of a criminal case. It is also not evident on the record as to what documents were prepared by the police of Police Station City Hisar. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no quarrel with the mandate of section 172 Cr.P.C. under which the accused does not have even a right to examine the case diary of a criminal case. It is also not evident on the record as to what documents were prepared by the police of Police Station City Hisar. 11. From the aforesaid discussion, it only appears that the petitioner is groping in dark and is trying to find out some document favourable to him. Until and unless the existence of the statements, copies of which are sought by the petitioner is proved, no order can be made for granting the same to the accused. In these circumstances, I do not find any error , perversity or unreasonableness in the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirsa. Hence, the petition is dismissed.