MAHAVEER CHANDRAKAR Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the order dated 12.06.2017 passed by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kabirdham in Sessions Trial No. 35/2016 wherein the application filed under section 91 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking direction to submit certain previous statements of witnesses and other papers was rejected.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case as narrated are that one Usha Chandrakar was married to the present applicant 17-18 years back. According to the prosecution, she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze on 26.6.2015. Initially, the merg intimation under section 174 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was given on 17.7.2015 from hospital at Raipur where she died. The subsequent merg intimation was registered on the basis of same on 03.10.2015. The investigation was carried and initially the FIR was lodged against Mahavir Chandrakar, the husband; Kapil Chandrakar father in law; Virendra Chandrakar, brother-in-law, Smt. Rani Bai the daughter-in-law; and Ku. Chandralekha, the sister in law on 10.01.2016. In between, the investigation was carried out and the statement of witnesses were recorded. Eventually the police during investigation found that no case is made out except against that of Mahavir Chandrakar, who is husband and the charge sheet was filed against the applicant alone under section 306 IPC. During the course of trial, an application under section 91 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was moved inter-alia claiming that during the merg inquest as also during enquiry by the SDO(Police), the Statement of different persons few of them who were also cited as prosecution witnesses were recorded. It was further stated that on the basis of earlier statement recorded by the SDO(P), a detailed enquiry was carried out and the SDO(P) came to a definite finding that the persons apart from Mahavir chandrakar have not been named to have abetted the cause, consequently the SDOP by its finding directed to exonerate the other persons who were also named in FIR. In this background, it was stated that the statements so recorded earlier were relevant to the accused applicant, therefore, they should be supplied to the accused, having not been filed along-with the charge sheet.

(3.) The learned trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the application vide order dated 12.06.2017 holding that according to prosecution, the accused had already obtained the document under Right to Information, therefore, the documents are no longer required and dismissed the application. Being aggrieved by such order, the present petition has been filed.