TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Protects Accused's Rights: Section 172 Limitation Clarified</h1> <h3>STATE OF KERALA Versus BABU & ORS.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that while Section 172 does not allow summoning case diaries of unrelated cases, Section ... - Issues Involved:1. Use of a witness's statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in a different trial.2. Authority of the Sessions Judge to summon police diaries of a case not under inquiry or trial before him.3. Permissibility under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. to use statements recorded under Section 161 in other proceedings.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Use of a witness's statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in a different trialThe core question is whether a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. in one crime can be used against that witness in another trial. The defense argued that any prior statement of a witness can be used for contradiction as per Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 145 of the Evidence Act, advocating for a liberal interpretation favoring the accused. The court acknowledged that Section 145 of the Evidence Act allows a witness to be cross-examined with previous written statements to establish contradictions. However, this right is controlled in criminal trials by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., which restricts the use of statements recorded under Section 161 to contradicting witnesses in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Evidence Act.Issue 2: Authority of the Sessions Judge to summon police diaries of a case not under inquiry or trial before himThe court examined whether the Sessions Judge could summon police diaries of a case not under his trial. Section 172 of the Cr.P.C. was scrutinized, which mandates that only police diaries of the case under inquiry or trial can be summoned. The court clarified that Section 172 does not permit summoning case diaries of different cases for aiding the accused. The trial court and High Court's reliance on Section 172 to summon such diaries was deemed incorrect. However, the court noted that the right to use previous statements for contradiction is not denied by the Cr.P.C. or the Evidence Act.Issue 3: Permissibility under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. to use statements recorded under Section 161 in other proceedingsThe court discussed the limitations imposed by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C., which aims to exclude statements made before the police during investigation from being used at trial, except for contradicting witnesses. The court referred to precedents like Tasildar Singh vs. State of U.P., emphasizing the legislative intent to protect the accused from unreliable statements made during police investigations. The court concluded that while Section 162 allows using previous statements to contradict witnesses, it does not extend to summoning case diaries of unrelated cases under Section 172. Instead, the court suggested using Section 91 of the Cr.P.C., which allows summoning documents necessary for trial, thereby enabling the accused to access previous statements without violating Section 172's restrictions.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, though for different reasons. It confirmed that while Section 172 does not permit summoning case diaries of unrelated cases, Section 91 can be invoked to produce necessary documents for trial, ensuring the accused's right to use previous statements for contradiction is preserved within the legal framework.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
