R.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.1.2001 whereby his application seeking copies of statement recorded by the police during the course of investigation has been rejected by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Ajmer.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred on 20.2.1996 between a bus and jeep. When the confirmation with regard to accident was conveyed to the Police Station, Christian Ganj, a formal FIR No. 55/96 was registered for offence under Sections 279, 137, 304-A IPC. Allegedly the investigation was carried out by three different police officers namely, Parma Lal (C.I.), the SHO Satyaveer Singh, Dy. S.P. (South) and by Birdi Chand, Dy. S.P. (North). During the course of investigation, the statements of some of the witnesses were repeatedly recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus Bhairu Singh, Chotu Singh and Trilok Chand have given their statements both before Panna Lal (C.I.), the SHO and before Satyaveer Singh, Dy. S.P. (South). Hence, two sets of statements of these witnesses do exist. But to the dismay of the accused persons only one set of their statements has been submitted in the charge-sheet filed by the police. Since accused could benefit from the other set of statements given by these witnesses, therefore, he moved an application before the learned Trial Court requesting that copies of all the statements recorded by the two investigating officers from these witnesses should be supplied to him. However, vide order dated 24.1.2001, the said application has been dismissed. Hence, this petition before us. Mr. Resham Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that according to Section 207 Cr.P.C. the prosecution is legally bound to supply copies of all the evidence collected by it during the course of investigation except those covered by 173(6) Cr.P.C. Thus, the learned Magistrate is duty bound to ensure that all the evidence collected by the investigation officer is supplied to the accused. For the Cr.P.C. ensures a fair trial to the accused. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the right to defend oneself. Since the statements recorded by the different investigating officers of the same witness would play a pivotal role in developing one's defence, the copies of the different statements given by the same witnesses to different Investigating Officers should have been supplied to the accused. In the case of Gurtej Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2005(8) RDD 3237 (Raj.), this Hon'ble Court has clearly held that "the prosecution cannot pick and choose the statement from documents and evidence produced before the Trial Court and to hide the other evidence, which may not be favourable to it". Such a hide and seek game not only keeps the Court in dark, but also violates the right of the accused to defend himself. Since the right to defend oneself emanates from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the accused for seeking copies of the second set of statements recorded from the same witnesses.
(3.) IN the result, the order dated 24.1.2001 is quashed and set-aside. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer is directed to call for the statements of Bairu Singh, Chotu Singh and Trilok Chand recorded by Panna Lal (C.I.), the SHO and by Satyaveer Singh, Dy. S.P. (South) and give a copy of these statements to the accused within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.;