Supreme Court : The court can give Protected Witness's Statement With Identity Redacted to accused as per S 207 of CRPC

  Having said so, we also come to the order passed by the trial court on 11.09.2021 which has been cautiously worded. The order has not only permitted redaction of the address and particulars of the witnesses which could disclose their identities but has further observed as noted aforesaid that even other relevant paras in the statement which would disclose their occupation and identity could be redacted. Thus, a wide discretion has been given and that too for the Special Public Prosecutor to take a call. There could thus have hardly been a grievance raised by the prosecution in this regard. On query to the learned counsel for the respondent as to how this order can in any manner prejudice or have the propensity to disclose the identity of the witnesses or their families with the possibility of harm being caused to them, there has really been no answer. We believe that the order dated 11.09.2021 is both fair and reasonable for the prosecution and defence while protecting the witnesses and not depriving the defence of a fair trial with the disclosure of the redacted portion of the testimony under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. {Para 27}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.237 OF 2022

WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA  Vs UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

Sanjay Kishan Kaul; M.M. Sundresh, JJ.

Author: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

February 25, 2022

Print Page

How to prove the statement of delinquent recorded in preliminary enquiry?

Learned counsel for the State argued that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief only on the technical ground of non-supply of documents unless it is shown as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner in his defence. It is contended that the petitioner, during preliminary enquiry, had given a statement on 7.9.1991 in which he admitted that he had interpolated the official records in order to mislead the authority and created an evidence of felling of trees which were otherwise illegally felled and transported away from the forest area. In his reply to charge sheet, the petitioner nowhere stated that he had never given any such statement of admission of his gilt on 7.9.1991 and he only gave evasive denial of charges against him. It is further submitted that all relevant documents as stated in Sr. No. 1 of his application dated 30.4.1992 were supplied to him and remaining documents demanded by the petitioner were not relevant to the charges because the charge No. 1 was not found proved against the petitioner and charge No. 2 was found proved on the basis of petitioner's own statement dated 7.9.1991 recorded during preliminary enquiry prior to issuance of charge sheet, which the petitioner did not dispute but only sought to justify at a later stage and not at the first instance while submitting his reply to the charge sheet. Once the petitioner had admitted having interpolated the records, the other ground of violation of principle of nature justice would not come to his aid and the enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated.

 A perusal of the enquiry report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority would at once reveal that the statement of Kishan Lal Sonwani, Kamta Ram Sahu as also pre-recorded statement of the petitioner himself was made a basis to sustain the charge No. 2 proved against him that he, acting in concert with Cherpa Gopal and Kishal Lal Sonwani, tampered the official record. As a matter of fact, the so called pre-recorded statement of the petitioner was used as an admission of the guilt by the petitioner. But this document was never supplied to the petitioner despite demand. This was the most crucial documents because the Enquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority both have heavily relied upon this document to hold charge No. 2 proved against the petitioner. The petitioner in his memo of appeal and even before this Court has taken a categoric stand that he was coerced to put signature on certain documents. Whether or not the petitioner would not been able to make out his defence, on this aspect, is one thing, but it can certainly be concluded that non-supply of this crucial documents seriously prejudiced the petitioner. It would not out of place to mention here that so called statement of the petitioner was not even proved by examining the officer who is alleged to have recorded the said statement. Therefore, serious prejudice on account of non-supply of statement is writ large on the fact of it.{Para 24}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 935 of 2005

Decided On: 31.10.2017

Dhanpati Barik Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

Dated:MANU/CG/0595/2017

Print Page

Whether prosecution can be directed to provide copy of documents to accused on which it is not relying?

It will be seen that under Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, where the proceedings are instituted on a police report, the Magistrate is bound to supply free of cost the copy of - (1) the police report; (2) the first information report, recorded under Section 154; (3) 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. In the reported case of the Delhi High Court - S.J. Choudhary State, (1984 Crl LJ 864), a view is taken that if the statements of the witnesses are recorded more than once, then all such statements will have to be supplied to the accused, as the accused may be able to use those statements, if they are contradictory. It has been held that the prosecution cannot choose a particular statement to be supplied and leaving out the other statements. The Delhi High Court has further taken a view that the prosecution would be bound to supply all the statements, even if recorded more than once of such witnesses as contemplated under Section 161(3), whether recorded in a police diary or otherwise, and thereby the valuable right, which has been conferred upon the accused person, would be preserved and the same cannot be denied to him. Reliance also can be placed on another reported decision of the Kerala High Court reported in State of Kerala v. Raghavan(1974 Crl LJ 1373), wherein the Kerala High Court has held that the prosecution cannot pick and choose and refuse to supply to the accused the copies of the statements which are contradictory to the prosecution case on the ground that the prosecution is not going to rely on the statements of those witnesses. Otherwise, it would be in deviation from the mandatory provisions of Criminal Law and to deny the accused the just and fair trial. 

Bombay High Court

Ramesh S/O. Wamanrao Babhulkar, ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 1 January, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1995 CriLJ 3424,1995(2) MHLJ724

Bench: V Sirpurkar

Print Page

Supreme Court: Accused should be allowed an inspection of the unmarked and unexhibited documents

 The issue that has emerged before us is, therefore, somewhat larger than what has been projected by the State and what has been dealt with by the High Court. The question arising would no longer be one of compliance or non-compliance with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and would travel beyond the confines of the strict language of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and touch upon the larger doctrine of a free and fair trial that has been painstakingly built up by the courts on a purposive interpretation of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is not the stage of making of the request; the efflux of time that has occurred or the prior conduct of the accused that is material. What is of significance is if in a given situation the accused comes to the court contending that some papers forwarded to the Court by the investigating agency have not been exhibited by the prosecution as the same favours the accused the court must concede a right to in the accused to have an access to the said documents, if so claimed. This, according to us, is the core issue in the case which must be answered affirmatively. In this regard, we would like to be specific in saying that we find it difficult to agree with the view taken by the High Court that the accused must be made to await the conclusion of the trial to test the plea of prejudice that he may have raised. Such a plea must be answered at the earliest and certainly before the conclusion of the trial, even though it may be raised by the accused belately. This is how the scales of justice in our Criminal Jurisprudence have to be balanced.
There is yet another possible dimension of the case. It is the specific contention of the accused in both the applications dated 29.3.2012 (for certified copies of the unmarked documents) and 18.4.2012 (for inspection) that it is in the course of the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that a perception had developed that the accused may be giving incomplete/ incorrect answers in response to the questions put to her by the Court and that she needs copies of the documents or at least an opportunity of inspection of the same to enable her to provide effective answers and to appropriately prepare her defence.
The accused No.2, i.e. the appellant herein, be allowed an inspection of the unmarked and unexhibited documents referred to by her in the application

Supreme Court of India

V.K. Sasikala vs State Rep. By Superintendent Of ... on 27 September, 2012

Author: Ranjan Gogoi

Bench: Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai

Print Page