Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 694 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9314 of 2016)
Balakram ….Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The judgment in Miscellaneous application No. 1123 of 2016, passed by
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital setting aside the order dated
31.8.2016 in I.A. No. 174 Kha in S.T. No. 1 of 2015 is called on question
in this appeal.
3. Respondent No.3 herein, along with another accused, is facing trial
in ST No. 01 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Champawat for the offences
punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. During the course of the
trial, after the completion of examination in chief of PW-15, an
application was filed by the respondent No.3 herein (one of the accused),
the contents of which read thus:-
“In the above mentioned case applicant wants to submit some key and
relevant documents which are necessary for the fair and just trial of
instant case.
It is therefore, humbly prayed that your Honour may kindly grant permission
for the same in the interest of justice.”
4. Along with the application, list of documents to be produced was also
filed. The documents are stated to be copies of certain pages of Police
diary maintained under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for brevity, Cr.P.C.), by the Investigation Officer (PW-15), which were
obtained by respondent No.3 by making an application under the provisions
of Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent No. 3 proposes to
confront PW 15 with those documents.
5. Such application was opposed by the appellant herein/complainant on
the ground that the fresh documents cannot be allowed to be produced by the
accused at the premature stage of trial and it is always open for the
accused to produce such documents during the stage of recording of
statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It was further
contended by the appellant that it is open for the accused to lead evidence
on their behalf after recording of the statements of the accused under
Section 313, Cr.P.C.
6. The application came to be rejected by the Sessions Court on
31.8.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 herein filed Misc.
Application No. 1123 of 2016 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order the High Court
allowed the said miscellaneous application.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant taking us through the order of the
Courts below, argued that entries made in the police diary referred to in
Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used for the purpose of Section 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless the conditions laid down under Section
172(2) and (3) of Cr.P.C are satisfied; that the High Court is not
justified in allowing the accused/respondent herein to produce certain
pages of police diary obtained by the respondent under the provisions of
Right to Information Act. He argued in support of the order of the Trial
Court.
8. Per contra, advocate for the respondent argued in support of the
order of the High Court contending that the documents sought to be produced
were for confronting PW 15-Investigation Officer who is the author of those
documents; the defence will lose an opportunity to confront the
investigation officer, in case the respondent is not allowed to produce the
documents in question. According to him, it is always open to the accused
to produce the documents to be relied upon by him at the time of recording
his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but the accused would not
get chance to confront the Investigation Officer with such documents.
9. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to note the provisions
of Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act for
deciding the issue involved:-
“Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.
(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall
day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting
forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he
began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and
a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under
inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence
in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such
diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they
are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer
who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the
purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161
or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of
1872 ), shall apply,
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.—A witness may
be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such
writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to
contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can
be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him.”
10. The afore-mentioned provisions are to be read conjointly and
homogenously. It is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 172 Cr.P.C.,
that the Trial Court has unfettered power to call for and examine the
entries in the police diaries maintained by the Investigating Officer. This
is a very important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust
in the Court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. If there is any
inconsistency or contradiction arising in the evidence, the Court can use
the entries made in the diaries for the purposes of contradicting the
police officer as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. It
cannot be denied that Court trying the case is the best guardian of
interest of justice. Under sub-section (2) the criminal court may send for
diaries and may use them not as evidence, but to aid it in an inquiry or
trial. The information which the Court may get from the entries in such
diaries usually will be utilized as foundation for questions to be put to
the police witness and the court may, if necessary in its discretion use
the entries to contradict the police officer, who made them. But the
entries in the police diary are neither substantive nor corroborative
evidence, and that they cannot be used against any other witness than
against the police officer that too for the limited extent indicated above.
11. Coming to the use of police diary by the accused, sub-section (3) of
Section 172 clearly lays down that neither the accused nor his agents shall
be entitled to call for such diaries nor he or they may be entitled to see
them merely because they are referred to by the Court. But, in case the
police officer uses the entries in the diaries to refresh his memory or if
the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer,
then the provisions of Sections 145 and 161, as the case may be, of the
Evidence Act would apply. Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides for
cross examination of a witness as to the previous statements made by him in
writing or reduced into writing and if it was intended to contradict him in
writing, his attention must be called to those portions which are to be
used for the purpose of contradiction. Section 161 deals with the adverse
party’s right as to the writing used to refresh memory. It can, therefore,
be seen that, the right of the accused to cross-examine the police officer
with reference to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in
extent and even that limited scope arises only when the Court uses the
entries to contradict the police officer or when the police officer uses it
for refreshing his memory.
12. In other words, in case if the Court does not use such entries for
the purpose of contradicting the police officer or if the police officer
does not use the same for refreshing his memory, then the question of
accused getting any right to use entries even to that limited extent does
not arise. The accused persons cannot force the police officer to refresh
his memory during his examination in the Court by referring to the entries
in the police diary.
13. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act consists of two limbs. It is
provided in the first limb of Section 145 that a witness may be cross-
examined as to the previous statements made by him without such writing
being shown to him. But the Second limb provides that, if it is intended
to contradict him by the writing, his attention must before writing can be
proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him. Sections 155 (3) and 145 of Indian Evidence
Act deal with the different aspects of the same matter and should,
therefore, be read together.
14. Be that as it may, as mentioned supra, right of the accused to cross
examine the police officer with reference to the entries in the police
diary is very much limited in extent and even that limited scope arises
only when the Court uses such entries to contradict the police officer or
when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory and that again is
subject to provisions of Sections 145 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Thus, a witness may be cross-examined as to his previous statements made by
him as contemplated under Section 145 of the Evidence Act if such previous
statements are brought on record, in accordance with law, before the Court
and if the contingencies as contemplated under Section 172(3) of Cr.P.C.
are fulfilled. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act does not either
extend or control the provisions of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. We may hasten to
add here itself that there is no scope in Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. to
enable the Court, the prosecution or the accused to use the police diary
for the purpose of contradicting any witness other than the police officer,
who made it.
15. In case of Malkiat Singh and others vs. State of Punjab[1], this
Court while considering the scope of Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. with reference
to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act observed thus:-
“It is manifest from its bare reading without subjecting to detailed and
critical analysis that the case diary is only a record of day to day
investigation of the investigating officer to ascertain the statement of
circumstances ascertained through the investigation. Under sub-section (2)
the court is entitled at the trial or enquiry to use the diary not as
evidence in the case, but as aid to it in the inquiry or trial. Neither the
accused, nor his agent, by operation of sub-section (3), shall be entitled
to call for the diary, nor shall he be entitled to use it as evidence
merely because the court referred to it. Only right given thereunder is
that if the police officer who made the entries in the diary uses it to
refresh his memory or if the court uses it for the purpose of contradicting
such witness, by operation of Section 161 of the Code and Section 145 of
the Evidence Act, it shall be used for the purpose of contradicting the
witness, i.e. Investigation Officer or to explain it in re-examination by
the prosecution, with permission of the court. It is, therefore, clear that
unless the investigating officer or the court uses it either to refresh the
memory or contradicting the investigating officer as previous statement
under Section 161 that too after drawing his attention thereto as is
enjoined under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the entries cannot be used
by the accused as evidence.”
16. The police diary is only a record of day to day investigation made by
the investigating officer. Neither the accused nor his agent is entitled
to call for such case diary and also are not entitled to see them during
the course of inquiry or trial. The unfettered power conferred by the
Statute under Section 172 (2) of Cr.P.C. on the court to examine the
entries of the police diary would not allow the accused to claim similar
unfettered right to inspect the case diary.
17. This Court in the case of Mukund Lal vs. Union of India and Anr[2].,
while considering the question relating to inspection of the entries made
in the case diary by the accused has observed thus:-
“We are of the opinion that the provision embodied in sub-section (3) of
Section 172 of the CrPC cannot be characterised as unreasonable or
arbitrary. Under sub-section (2) of Section 172 CrPC the court itself has
the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very
important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust in the
court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the
court to call for any such relevant case diary; if there is any
inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case diary the
court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police
officer as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the CrPC.
Ultimately there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of
justice than the court trying the case. No court will deny to itself the
power to make use of the entries in the diary to the advantage of the
accused by contradicting the police officer with reference to the contents
of the diaries. In view of this safeguard, the charge of unreasonableness
or arbitrariness cannot stand scrutiny. The petitioners claim an unfettered
right to make roving inspection of the entries in the case diary regardless
of whether these entries are used by the police officer concerned to
refresh his memory or regardless of the fact whether the court has used
these entries for the purpose of contradicting such police officer. It
cannot be said that unless such unfettered right is conferred and
recognised, the embargo engrafted in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the
CrPC would fail to meet the test of reasonableness. For instance in the
case diary there might be a note as regards the identity of the informant
who gave some information which resulted in investigation into a particular
aspect. Public interest demands that such an entry is not made available to
the accused for it might endanger the safety of the informants and it might
deter the informants from giving any information to assist the
investigating agency, as observed in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor:
“The accused has no right to insist upon a police witness referring to his
diary in order to elicit information which is privileged. The contents of
the diary are not at the disposal of the defence and cannot be used except
strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 162 and 172. Section
172 shows that witness may refresh his memory by reference to them but such
use is at the discretion of the witness and the judge, whose duty it is to
ensure that the privilege attaching to them by statute is strictly
enforced.”
The public interest requirement from the standpoint of the need to ensure a
fair trial for an accused is more than sufficiently met by the power
conferred on the court, which is the ultimate custodian of the interest of
justice and can always be trusted to be vigilant to ensure that the
interest of accused persons standing the trial, is fully safeguarded.”
18. From the afore-mentioned, it is clear that the denial of right to the
accused to inspect the case diary cannot be characterized as unreasonable
or arbitrary. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of
investigation and it is not desirable to make available the police diary to
the accused on his demand.
19. Since we are not called upon to decide the question as to whether the
copy of the case diary or a portion thereof can be provided to the accused
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, we are not deciding
the said question in the matter on hand. In the case of Sidharth etc. etc.
vs. State of Bihar[3], the entire case diary maintained by the police was
made available to the accused by the trial Court. In that context certain
observations were made by this Court which read thus:-
“….But if the entire case diary is made available to the accused, it may
cause serious prejudice to others and even affect the safety and security
of those who may have given statements to the police. The confidentiality
is always kept in the matter of criminal investigation and it is not
desirable to make available the entire case diary to the accused. In the
instant case, we have noticed that the entire case diary was given to the
accused and the investigating officer was extensively cross-examined on
many facts which were not very much relevant for the purpose of the case.
The learned Sessions Judge should have been careful in seeing that the
trial of the case was conducted in accordance with the provisions of CrPC.”
20. Since in the matter on hand, neither the police officer has
refreshed his memory with reference to entries in the police diary nor has
the trial court used the entries in the diary for the purposes of
contradicting the police officer (PW-15), it is not open for the accused to
produce certain pages of police diary obtained by him under the provisions
of Right to Information Act for the purpose of contradicting the police
officer.
21. In view of the above, the High Court is not justified in permitting
the accused to produce certain pages of police diary at the time of cross
examination of PW-15/Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the impugned Order
is liable to be set aside and the same stands set aside. The appeal is
allowed.
…….…………………………..J.
(Dipak Misra)
…….…………………………..J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………………J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
New Delhi
Dated: April 19, 2017
-----------------------
[1] . 1991(4) SCC 341
[2] AIR 1989 SC 144
[3] AIR 2005 SC 4352
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 694 OF 2017
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9314 of 2016)
Balakram ….Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The judgment in Miscellaneous application No. 1123 of 2016, passed by
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital setting aside the order dated
31.8.2016 in I.A. No. 174 Kha in S.T. No. 1 of 2015 is called on question
in this appeal.
3. Respondent No.3 herein, along with another accused, is facing trial
in ST No. 01 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Champawat for the offences
punishable under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. During the course of the
trial, after the completion of examination in chief of PW-15, an
application was filed by the respondent No.3 herein (one of the accused),
the contents of which read thus:-
“In the above mentioned case applicant wants to submit some key and
relevant documents which are necessary for the fair and just trial of
instant case.
It is therefore, humbly prayed that your Honour may kindly grant permission
for the same in the interest of justice.”
4. Along with the application, list of documents to be produced was also
filed. The documents are stated to be copies of certain pages of Police
diary maintained under Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for brevity, Cr.P.C.), by the Investigation Officer (PW-15), which were
obtained by respondent No.3 by making an application under the provisions
of Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent No. 3 proposes to
confront PW 15 with those documents.
5. Such application was opposed by the appellant herein/complainant on
the ground that the fresh documents cannot be allowed to be produced by the
accused at the premature stage of trial and it is always open for the
accused to produce such documents during the stage of recording of
statements of the accused under Section 313, Cr.P.C. It was further
contended by the appellant that it is open for the accused to lead evidence
on their behalf after recording of the statements of the accused under
Section 313, Cr.P.C.
6. The application came to be rejected by the Sessions Court on
31.8.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.3 herein filed Misc.
Application No. 1123 of 2016 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital under Section 482 Cr.P.C. By the impugned order the High Court
allowed the said miscellaneous application.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant taking us through the order of the
Courts below, argued that entries made in the police diary referred to in
Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used for the purpose of Section 145 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 unless the conditions laid down under Section
172(2) and (3) of Cr.P.C are satisfied; that the High Court is not
justified in allowing the accused/respondent herein to produce certain
pages of police diary obtained by the respondent under the provisions of
Right to Information Act. He argued in support of the order of the Trial
Court.
8. Per contra, advocate for the respondent argued in support of the
order of the High Court contending that the documents sought to be produced
were for confronting PW 15-Investigation Officer who is the author of those
documents; the defence will lose an opportunity to confront the
investigation officer, in case the respondent is not allowed to produce the
documents in question. According to him, it is always open to the accused
to produce the documents to be relied upon by him at the time of recording
his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but the accused would not
get chance to confront the Investigation Officer with such documents.
9. Before proceeding further it would be relevant to note the provisions
of Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act for
deciding the issue involved:-
“Section 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
172. Diary of proceedings in investigation.
(1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall
day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting
forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he
began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and
a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation.
(2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under
inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence
in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.
(3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such
diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they
are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer
who made them to refresh his memory, or if the Court uses them for the
purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161
or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of
1872 ), shall apply,
Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.—A witness may
be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or
reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such
writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to
contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can
be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him.”
10. The afore-mentioned provisions are to be read conjointly and
homogenously. It is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 172 Cr.P.C.,
that the Trial Court has unfettered power to call for and examine the
entries in the police diaries maintained by the Investigating Officer. This
is a very important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust
in the Court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. If there is any
inconsistency or contradiction arising in the evidence, the Court can use
the entries made in the diaries for the purposes of contradicting the
police officer as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. It
cannot be denied that Court trying the case is the best guardian of
interest of justice. Under sub-section (2) the criminal court may send for
diaries and may use them not as evidence, but to aid it in an inquiry or
trial. The information which the Court may get from the entries in such
diaries usually will be utilized as foundation for questions to be put to
the police witness and the court may, if necessary in its discretion use
the entries to contradict the police officer, who made them. But the
entries in the police diary are neither substantive nor corroborative
evidence, and that they cannot be used against any other witness than
against the police officer that too for the limited extent indicated above.
11. Coming to the use of police diary by the accused, sub-section (3) of
Section 172 clearly lays down that neither the accused nor his agents shall
be entitled to call for such diaries nor he or they may be entitled to see
them merely because they are referred to by the Court. But, in case the
police officer uses the entries in the diaries to refresh his memory or if
the Court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer,
then the provisions of Sections 145 and 161, as the case may be, of the
Evidence Act would apply. Section 145 of the Evidence Act provides for
cross examination of a witness as to the previous statements made by him in
writing or reduced into writing and if it was intended to contradict him in
writing, his attention must be called to those portions which are to be
used for the purpose of contradiction. Section 161 deals with the adverse
party’s right as to the writing used to refresh memory. It can, therefore,
be seen that, the right of the accused to cross-examine the police officer
with reference to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in
extent and even that limited scope arises only when the Court uses the
entries to contradict the police officer or when the police officer uses it
for refreshing his memory.
12. In other words, in case if the Court does not use such entries for
the purpose of contradicting the police officer or if the police officer
does not use the same for refreshing his memory, then the question of
accused getting any right to use entries even to that limited extent does
not arise. The accused persons cannot force the police officer to refresh
his memory during his examination in the Court by referring to the entries
in the police diary.
13. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act consists of two limbs. It is
provided in the first limb of Section 145 that a witness may be cross-
examined as to the previous statements made by him without such writing
being shown to him. But the Second limb provides that, if it is intended
to contradict him by the writing, his attention must before writing can be
proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the
purpose of contradicting him. Sections 155 (3) and 145 of Indian Evidence
Act deal with the different aspects of the same matter and should,
therefore, be read together.
14. Be that as it may, as mentioned supra, right of the accused to cross
examine the police officer with reference to the entries in the police
diary is very much limited in extent and even that limited scope arises
only when the Court uses such entries to contradict the police officer or
when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory and that again is
subject to provisions of Sections 145 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Thus, a witness may be cross-examined as to his previous statements made by
him as contemplated under Section 145 of the Evidence Act if such previous
statements are brought on record, in accordance with law, before the Court
and if the contingencies as contemplated under Section 172(3) of Cr.P.C.
are fulfilled. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act does not either
extend or control the provisions of Section 172 of Cr.P.C. We may hasten to
add here itself that there is no scope in Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. to
enable the Court, the prosecution or the accused to use the police diary
for the purpose of contradicting any witness other than the police officer,
who made it.
15. In case of Malkiat Singh and others vs. State of Punjab[1], this
Court while considering the scope of Section 172(3) Cr.P.C. with reference
to Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act observed thus:-
“It is manifest from its bare reading without subjecting to detailed and
critical analysis that the case diary is only a record of day to day
investigation of the investigating officer to ascertain the statement of
circumstances ascertained through the investigation. Under sub-section (2)
the court is entitled at the trial or enquiry to use the diary not as
evidence in the case, but as aid to it in the inquiry or trial. Neither the
accused, nor his agent, by operation of sub-section (3), shall be entitled
to call for the diary, nor shall he be entitled to use it as evidence
merely because the court referred to it. Only right given thereunder is
that if the police officer who made the entries in the diary uses it to
refresh his memory or if the court uses it for the purpose of contradicting
such witness, by operation of Section 161 of the Code and Section 145 of
the Evidence Act, it shall be used for the purpose of contradicting the
witness, i.e. Investigation Officer or to explain it in re-examination by
the prosecution, with permission of the court. It is, therefore, clear that
unless the investigating officer or the court uses it either to refresh the
memory or contradicting the investigating officer as previous statement
under Section 161 that too after drawing his attention thereto as is
enjoined under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, the entries cannot be used
by the accused as evidence.”
16. The police diary is only a record of day to day investigation made by
the investigating officer. Neither the accused nor his agent is entitled
to call for such case diary and also are not entitled to see them during
the course of inquiry or trial. The unfettered power conferred by the
Statute under Section 172 (2) of Cr.P.C. on the court to examine the
entries of the police diary would not allow the accused to claim similar
unfettered right to inspect the case diary.
17. This Court in the case of Mukund Lal vs. Union of India and Anr[2].,
while considering the question relating to inspection of the entries made
in the case diary by the accused has observed thus:-
“We are of the opinion that the provision embodied in sub-section (3) of
Section 172 of the CrPC cannot be characterised as unreasonable or
arbitrary. Under sub-section (2) of Section 172 CrPC the court itself has
the unfettered power to examine the entries in the diaries. This is a very
important safeguard. The legislature has reposed complete trust in the
court which is conducting the inquiry or the trial. It has empowered the
court to call for any such relevant case diary; if there is any
inconsistency or contradiction arising in the context of the case diary the
court can use the entries for the purpose of contradicting the police
officer as provided in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the CrPC.
Ultimately there can be no better custodian or guardian of the interest of
justice than the court trying the case. No court will deny to itself the
power to make use of the entries in the diary to the advantage of the
accused by contradicting the police officer with reference to the contents
of the diaries. In view of this safeguard, the charge of unreasonableness
or arbitrariness cannot stand scrutiny. The petitioners claim an unfettered
right to make roving inspection of the entries in the case diary regardless
of whether these entries are used by the police officer concerned to
refresh his memory or regardless of the fact whether the court has used
these entries for the purpose of contradicting such police officer. It
cannot be said that unless such unfettered right is conferred and
recognised, the embargo engrafted in sub-section (3) of Section 172 of the
CrPC would fail to meet the test of reasonableness. For instance in the
case diary there might be a note as regards the identity of the informant
who gave some information which resulted in investigation into a particular
aspect. Public interest demands that such an entry is not made available to
the accused for it might endanger the safety of the informants and it might
deter the informants from giving any information to assist the
investigating agency, as observed in Mohinder Singh v. Emperor:
“The accused has no right to insist upon a police witness referring to his
diary in order to elicit information which is privileged. The contents of
the diary are not at the disposal of the defence and cannot be used except
strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 162 and 172. Section
172 shows that witness may refresh his memory by reference to them but such
use is at the discretion of the witness and the judge, whose duty it is to
ensure that the privilege attaching to them by statute is strictly
enforced.”
The public interest requirement from the standpoint of the need to ensure a
fair trial for an accused is more than sufficiently met by the power
conferred on the court, which is the ultimate custodian of the interest of
justice and can always be trusted to be vigilant to ensure that the
interest of accused persons standing the trial, is fully safeguarded.”
18. From the afore-mentioned, it is clear that the denial of right to the
accused to inspect the case diary cannot be characterized as unreasonable
or arbitrary. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of
investigation and it is not desirable to make available the police diary to
the accused on his demand.
19. Since we are not called upon to decide the question as to whether the
copy of the case diary or a portion thereof can be provided to the accused
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, we are not deciding
the said question in the matter on hand. In the case of Sidharth etc. etc.
vs. State of Bihar[3], the entire case diary maintained by the police was
made available to the accused by the trial Court. In that context certain
observations were made by this Court which read thus:-
“….But if the entire case diary is made available to the accused, it may
cause serious prejudice to others and even affect the safety and security
of those who may have given statements to the police. The confidentiality
is always kept in the matter of criminal investigation and it is not
desirable to make available the entire case diary to the accused. In the
instant case, we have noticed that the entire case diary was given to the
accused and the investigating officer was extensively cross-examined on
many facts which were not very much relevant for the purpose of the case.
The learned Sessions Judge should have been careful in seeing that the
trial of the case was conducted in accordance with the provisions of CrPC.”
20. Since in the matter on hand, neither the police officer has
refreshed his memory with reference to entries in the police diary nor has
the trial court used the entries in the diary for the purposes of
contradicting the police officer (PW-15), it is not open for the accused to
produce certain pages of police diary obtained by him under the provisions
of Right to Information Act for the purpose of contradicting the police
officer.
21. In view of the above, the High Court is not justified in permitting
the accused to produce certain pages of police diary at the time of cross
examination of PW-15/Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the impugned Order
is liable to be set aside and the same stands set aside. The appeal is
allowed.
…….…………………………..J.
(Dipak Misra)
…….…………………………..J.
(A.M. Khanwilkar)
…………………………………J.
(Mohan M. Shantanagoudar)
New Delhi
Dated: April 19, 2017
-----------------------
[1] . 1991(4) SCC 341
[2] AIR 1989 SC 144
[3] AIR 2005 SC 4352
