STATE OF ASSAM Vs. SUPRABHAT BHADRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 395 of the Cri. P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Nowgong, soliciting this Court's opinion on an important question of law. The same is whether a witness in a criminal trial can be allowed to be contradicted with reference to the statement made by him before a Commission of Inquiry constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, hereinafter the Act.

(2.) IN the case before the learned Sessions Judge, some persons were facing trial under various Sections of law, including 302 IPC. One of the charges was that the unlawful assembly had caused the death of one Anil Bora at Hojai Town. To inquire into the circumstances leading to the death of aforesaid Anil, a Commission of Inquiry under the Act had been constituted and which had submitted its report. A petition was, therefore, filed before the trial court on 27.6.1980 stating that many charge -sheeted witnesses were examined before the aforesaid Commission, and so, for the ends of justice and for proper defence of the accused, the statements of these witnesses before the Commission should be called for. The Presiding Officer by an order dated 5.9.1980 allowed this prayer as he felt that "the statement made by witnesses before Commission can be used for corroboration and contradiction under Section 145 Evidence Act." He, therefore, ordered to call for the depositions from the Home Secretary. The records, however, did not come even by 25.3.1981 when a fresh prayer was made to call for the records. In the meantime there was charge in the incumbent of the office. The learned Sessions Judge who dealt with this matter on 25.3.1981 felt that the record of Commission of Inquiry is inadmissible under Section 6 of the Act. In view of the conflicting decision the point has been referred to this Court under Section 395 of the Code. This is how the matter is before us.

(3.) SHRI Lahiri who has appeared for the accused persons first raised a point that it was not open to the succeeding Sessions Judge to modify the order already passed in this regard by his predecessor. We do not propose to go into this aspect and dispose of the reference on this short ground inasmuch as the point is of importance and needs decision at our hand for guidance of the subordinate judiciary.