Investigating officer can not remove statements of neighbour from case diary at the time of filing of chargesheet
Now on coming to the merits of the present case, it appears that in the case of death of Smt. Meenesh wife of accused-petitioner, on information of Ramveer Singh, a merg report was lodged at No. 08/2009. During inquiry, statements of neighbouring witnesses Baijnath Singh, Roop Singh and Vinod Singh were recorded. After merg inquiry, the FIR was lodged and in investigation the statements of the above mentioned witnesses were recorded. But, after investigation, by removing the statements of these three above witnesses, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offence under Section306 of IPC. In trial, the Trial Judge on the basis of charge-sheet and the prosecution evidence enclosed therewith, framed charges against the accused. During trial, the Trial Judge recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. Most of the ocular witnesses did not support the prosecution version. At that juncture, one of the witnesses, namely, Baijnath Singh who was a neighbour and an eye-witness of the incident filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court which after hearing the parties was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order rejecting his application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., said witness Baijnath Singh filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being Misc. Cri. Case No. 1430/2012 which was allowed by this Court under the order impugned directing the Trial Court for summoning the case diary of the crime and taking the statements of the above three witnesses on record. True it is, in view of the provisions contemplated in Section 301 of Cr.P.C., the said witness Baijnath Singh was not complainant and so he was not having any right to participate independently in criminal trial against the accused but when the Investigating Agency itself while submitting charge-sheet papers keeps mum and adopts method of pick and choose in filing the documents alongwith the charge-sheet before the Court and when an application is made to a Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., at that juncture, obviously the Court is bound to consider whether there is a prima facie case for supposing that the statements are relevant and the same are likely to have a bearing on the case. It was in this context, when the application was rejected by the Trial Court and the Trial Court did not focus any attention on the question whether the statements sought to be summoned by the petitioner/respondent No. 2 had any relevancy in the case, the petitioner/respondent No. 2 approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Keeping in view the fact that the Courts exist for dispensation of justice and not for its denial for technical reasons when law and justice otherwise demand, this Court interfered under its inherent powers vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and directed the Trial Court to look into the statements and proceed in accordance with law.1
Misc. Criminal Case No. 7212/2012
ILR[2013]MP1770, 2013(3)MPHT479; 2013 crlj (NOC)657 M.P
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
Decided On: 17.05.2013
Appellants: Babburaja
Vs.
Respondent: State of M.P. and Another
Vs.
Respondent: State of M.P. and Another
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:G.D. Saxena , J.
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/12/investigating-officer-can-not-remove.html
