"It Might Be A Political Hot Potato, But Legally Nothing": Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Police's Plea In Chief Secy. Assault Case

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal by the Delhi Police challenging the Delhi High Court order which allowed CM Arvind Kejriwal and Deputy CM Manish Sisodia's plea to provide statement of witnesses in the 2018 alleged assault of then-CS Anshu Prakash."It is the basic principle of natural justice, it is common sense that the accused must have the copy. It might be a political hot potato, but legally, it is nothing. It is not worth it lingering on this matter. It is a good view of the High Court and it is in the interest of liberty and we will affirm it", Justice D. Y. Chandrachud told ASG Aman Lekhi for the Delhi state.It was Mr. Lekhi's case that the statement in question is not a CrPC section 161 statement at all and that it is a part of the case diary and hence, there was no question of supplying the same at all. "If you proceed on the presumption that it is a statement, then it will have to be supplied. But if the premise itself is incorrect, the circular reasoning will also result in the wrong conclusion", he advanced."The May 9, 2018 statement specifically states that it is in continuation of the earlier statement. Once the statement has been recorded, what is this about not giving the copy of the statement? You can't have the investigating agency pick and choose things which are favourable to you. It is the correct order of the High Court", Justice Chandrachud told him."The Investigating agency must also abide by the duty to be fair. This is not an oral statement which has been recorded in the case diary, this is a written statement and it will not be fair to the accused to not give it to them. If there is something which will benefit the accused, they are entitled to access it. The purpose of criminal justice administration is not to convict people but to allow criminal justice to run a fair course. Leave it there, there is nothing in this matter", observed the judge."Your Lordships have said that evidence has to be given. But it has to be evidence in the manner that law understands. Here, what is recorded is in the case diary. Law makes a distinction between 161(3), 172, 173(5) and (6) and 207 of the CrPC. The obligation to supply under 207 is of the statements", argued the ASG.He indicated that section 207 requires that in any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:-(i) the police report;(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;(iii) the statements recorded under sub- section (3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses;excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub- section (6) of section 173;(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub- section (5) of section 173:At this, Senior Advocate A. M. Singhvi, appearing for the respondents, asked Mr. Lekhi to also read the proviso to section 207 which provides that that the Magistrate may, after perusing any such part of a statement as is referred to in clause (iii) and considering the reasons given by the police officer for the request, direct that a copy of that part of the statement or of such portion thereof as the Magistrate thinks proper, shall be furnished to the accused."It is irrelevant because that will apply to the redacted portions of 161. This is not a question of redaction at all! This is the question of a statement not under 161 at all but recorded in the case diary!", repeated Mr. Lekhi."By virtue of an Amendment in 2009, 161 statements shall be inserted into the case diary. This order does not deal with amendment or the impact. There was a judgement of the Supreme Court for standardisation, pursuant to which the amendment was brought in. But still, while 161 statements will be inserted in the case diary, but they will not be a part of the case diary. It is only to ensure proper volumes and pagination", he continued.He indicated section 172 of the CrPC which provides that 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, and that 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."Because it is part of the case diary, it cannot be treated as evidence! So the question of all evidence being supplied will not in any way rise!", pressed the ASG."This is not a question of giving the case diary. What is given is the statement of the person which is reflected in the case diary. That was a part of the earlier statement under 161. So what is directed to be given is...

"It Might Be A Political Hot Potato, But Legally Nothing": Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Police's Plea In Chief Secy. Assault Case

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

"It Might Be A Political Hot Potato, But Legally Nothing": Supreme Court Dismisses Delhi Police's Plea In Chief Secy. Assault Case

Mehal Jain

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers