- (1.) Wanting to pick some chinks In the armour of the prosecution, the petitioner filed two different applications under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) before the Learned Trial Court. However, vide Order dated 4-10-2004, the Learned Trial Court rejected the said applications by a common order. Hence, this petition before us.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner allegedly kidnapped Smt. Sumedha Durlabhji, a member of a prominent family of Jaipur. He is facing a trial for offences under Section 364A, 344, and 120B IPC. During the course of the trial, the petitioner moved two applications under Section 91 of the Code. In the first application, dated 24-9-2004, he pointed out that Mr. Hemant Sharma, who was working in the Police Department in the Jodhpur Range, and Mr. Umaid Singh who was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the ACP and few other police officers were constituted into different investigating teams by the DIG, Range 1, Jaipur vide letter No. 825 to 833, 837 to 847, 848 to 878. He requested that these letters be summoned from the police as they would be needed for the just decision of the case. By another application, dated 26-10-2004, he asked for summoning of "Roznamchas" (General Case Diaries) of Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Transport Nagar, Malviya Nagar and Moti Dungari in Jaipur. He further pleaded that Mr. Om Prakash from Police Station Bajaj Nagar and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Sub-Inspector, have appeared as witnesses in the criminal case. They need to be cross-examined with respect to these 'Roznamchas', Therefore it is imperative that these 'Roznamchas' be summoned by the Court. However, vide Order dated 4-10-2004, the Learned Trial Court dismissed both the applications.
(3.) Mr. Sudeep Hora, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised many contentions before us. Firstly, the Constitutionof India provides for safeguarding the "life or personal liberty" of every person. The State can deprive a person of his "Life or personal liberty", but by following a procedure established by law. Secondly, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the accused has the right to defend his "life" and "personal liberty". In order to defend himself, it is imperative that all the evidence collected by the police during the course of investigation should be placed at his disposal. Such evidence would also include the 'Roznamchas' and the internal correspondence of the Police Department by which the Po1ice Officers were appointed as Investigating ing Officers. Thus, the documents mentioned above were "necessary and desirable" in accordance with Section 91 of the Code for the just decision of the case. However, by rejecting the said applications, the Learned Trial Court has committed a grave illegality. Thirdly, the recoveries in this case were made by the police without involving independent witnesses. Since the recoveries were made only in front of police officers, the recoveries were suspect in the eyes of the law. According to the learned Counsel these documents were required for casting a doubt on the veracity of the recoveries. Fourthly, the defence is not built up in installments, but is created from the very beginning. These documents were needed for confronting the witnesses during the course of cross examination. Therefore, the documents were presently needed in the trial. Lastly, though these documents can be summoned when the defence enters its evidence, but that is no consolation. For, Section 243 (2) of the Code gives a discretionary power to the Court, the Court may refuse to call for the production of any document. Moreover, such a summoning of documents at the penultimate end of the trial would only prolong the completion of the trial. A prolonged trial is neither in the interest of the accused, nor in the interest of the victim. Hence, the accused may not be able to defend himself in a substantial manner. In order to substantiate his contentions, the learned Counsel has relied upon State of Kerala v. Babu and others AIR 1999 SC 2161 : (1999 Cri LJ 3491), Sadhu Singh v. State of U. P. AIR 1978 SC 1506, Kalpnath Rai v. State (through CBI) ((1997) 8 SCC 732) : (1998 Cri LJ 369) : (AIR 1998 SC 201), State of A. P. v. Patnam Anandam (2005) 9 SCC 237 : (2005 Cri LJ 894), Sahib Singh v. State of Punjab (1996) 11 SCC 685 : (1997 Cri LJ 2978), Bharat v. State of M. P. (2003) 3 SCC 106 : (2003 Cri LJ 1297), Aslam Parwez v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi ((2003) 9 SCC 141) : (2003 Cri LJ 2525), K. V. Rama Krishna Reddy v. The State 1975 Cri LJ 980 (AP), Ran Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993 (1) Crimes 1055 (Punj), Jaivir Singh v. State of Delhi (1995 Cri LJ 1477) (Del), Davendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (1990 (2) RLR 629), Bhika Ram v. State of Rajasthan (1998) 1 Raj Cri C 570, State of Kerala v. Raghavan etc., 1974 Cri LJ 1373 (Ker), Navin Ramji Kamani v. Shri K. C. Shekhran 1981 Raj Cri C218;