- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the interrogation note of accused-petitioner Naresh Yadav has been admitted in evidence.
(2.) Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to take note of few relevant dates, which are mentioned hereunder: 8th May, 2007: FIR was registered at Police Station, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur for various offences including the offence u/Sec. 307 I.P.C. 14th August, 2007: Two accused, namely, Hoshiyar Singh and Ramesh (petitioners No. 2 and 3) were arrested. 3rd November, 2007: Charge sheet No. 199/2007 was filed against three accused, namely, Hoshiyar Singh, Naresh and Narendra. 14th December, 2007: Charges were framed against the aforesaid 3 accused. 23rd March, 2008: Supplementary charge sheet was filed against accused Surendra @ Cheeku. 24th May, 2008 The petitioner was apprehended by Delhi Police in connection with FIR No. 25. 22nd August, 2008 The supplementary charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner No. 1.
(3.) The petitioner (accused) is facing a trial before the trial Court for offence under Sections 307, 120B, 452 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. The prosecution was in the process of examining its witness Bachhu Singh, P.W. 26. The petitioner was apprehended by PW-26 Bachhu Singh in connection with another Criminal Case, at Delhi. Bachhu Singh recorded the interrogational statement of the petitioner on 24th May, 2008. The statement of Bachhu Singh was being recorded before the trial Court on 13th May, 2009 when the prosecution sought permission to exhibit the statement of the accused recorded by the above named police Officer in connection with another investigation being made by him. An objection was raised about the admissibility of this statement because as per the counsel for the petitioner, such statement would be hit by Section 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. The said objection has been over ruled by the learned trial Court, holding that since the statement led to a disclose i.e. involvement of the petitioner in the present crime, therefore, the statement was one covered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The trial Judge has also observed that since Bachhu Singh was not a Police Officer investigating the case in FIR No. 157/2007 against the petitioner, therefore, he could not be treated to be a Police Officer as defined in Section 25 of the Evidence Act.;