27 Feb 2024 4:56 AM GMT
The Supreme Court has held that an accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses to refresh his memory.
Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of contradicting a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the said statement so recorded which is relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that count.
Although the accused or his agents have no right to seek production of the case diaries as per Section 172(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, whenever the police officer uses it to refresh his memory, the accused will get a right to access it for the purpose of cross-examination.
"When a police officer uses case diary for refreshing his memory, an accused automatically gets a right to peruse that part of the prior statement as recorded in the police officer's diary by taking recourse to Section 145 or Section 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act", observed the bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti.
"While it is the responsibility and duty of the Investigating Officer to make a due recording in his case diary, there is no corresponding right under subsection (3) of Section 172 of CrPC for accused to seek production of such diaries, or to peruse them, except in a case where they are used by a police officer maintaining them to refresh his memory, or in a case where the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting the police officer. In such a case, the provision of Section 145 or Section 161, as the case may be, of the Evidence Act, shall apply," the judgment authored by Justice Sundresh explained.
The bench made these observations while deciding a criminal appeal againstt the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court convicting the appellants for the offence of murder.
In the judgment, the bench discussed the relevance of case diary and its evidentiary value.
"A case diary is maintained by an Investigating Officer during his investigation for the purpose of entering the day-to-day proceedings of the investigation. While doing so, the Investigating Officer should mandatorily record the necessary particulars gathered in the course of investigation with the relevant date, time and place. Under sub-section (1-A) and (1-B) of Section 172 of CrPC, the Investigating Officer has to mention, in his case diary, the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation with due pagination. Sub-section (1-A) and (1-B) were inserted by Act 5 of 2009 with effect from 31/12/2009. The object of these sub-sections is to facilitate a fair investigation since a statement made under Section 161 of CrPC is not expected to be signed as mandated by Section 162 of CrPC," the Court stated.
"Section 172(3) of CrPC makes a specific reference to Section 145 and Section 161 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, whenever a case is made out either under Section 145 or under Section 161 of the Evidence Act, the benefit conferred thereunder along with the benefit of Section 172(3) of CrPC has to be extended to an accused. Thus, the accused has a right to cross-examine a police officer as to the recording made in the case diary whenever the police officer uses it to refresh his memory. Though Section 161 of the Evidence Act does not restrict itself to a case of refreshing memory by perusing a case diary alone, there is no exclusion for doing so. Similarly, in a case where the court uses a case diary for the purpose of contradicting a police officer, then an accused is entitled to peruse the said statement so recorded which is relevant, and cross-examine the police officer on that count. What is relevant in such a case is the process of using it for the purpose of contradiction and not the conclusion. To make the position clear, though Section 145 read with Section 161 of the Evidence Act deals with the right of a party including an accused, such a right is limited and restrictive when it is applied to Section 172 of CrPC. Suffice it is to state, that the said right cannot be declined when the author of a case diary uses it to refresh his memory or the court uses it for the purpose of contradiction. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that Section 145 and Section 161 of the Evidence Act on the one hand and Section 172(3) of CrPC on the other are to be read in consonance with each other, subject to the limited right conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 172 of CrPC"
As regards the merits of the matter, the Court found that the conviction was based on weak grounds as the evidence on record was not confidence inspiring. The Court found that that there were alterations in the case diary and some of the pages were also missing. The Court opined that there were strong grounds to believe that the crime did not occur on the date as alleged by the prosecution.
"On perusal of the case diary, we find that at several places such corrections have been made, while some pages were even missing. A clear attempt is made to correct the dates. Such corrections actually were put against the appellant while they indeed helped the case of the prosecution. The finding of the trial court in this regard is neither logical nor reasonable," the Court observed while overturning the conviction.
Case Details : Shailesh Kumar v. State of UP (now State of Uttarakhand)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 162
Click here to read the judgment