(1.) The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.131 of 2022 of Thadiyittaparamba Police Station, now pending as S.C.No.450 of 2022 on the files of the Fast Track Special Court, Perumbavoor. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Ss. 342, 376, 376(2)(f)(n), 376(3), 354A(1)(i), 354B, 506(i) of IPC and Ss. 4(2) read with 3(a), 6 read with 5(f), 5(l), 5(p), 8 read with 7, 10 read with 9(f)(l), 9(p), 12 read with 11(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (PoCSO for short) and Sec. 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. When the trial of the case reached the defence evidence stage, the petitioner filed a witness list and two petitions; CMP No. 133 of 2024, seeking production of the General Diary maintained at the Thadiyittaparamba Police Station and CMP No.134 of 2024 for producing the weekly report of the Investigating Officer maintained at the office of the District Police Chief. By the common order impugned in these Crl.M.Cs, the trial court dismissed both the petitions.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, once the General Diary is produced, the entries therein can be utilised to prove that a written complaint regarding the alleged commission of the offence was received by the Investigating Officer, which does not find a place in the FIR registered much later. The petitioner became aware of the entries only on receipt of a copy of the General Diary under the Right to Information Act. The GD entries will also show that the petitioner was taken into custody much before the registration of the crime and the Investigating Officer was engaged in other duties at the time when the Scene Mahazar is shown to have been prepared by him.
(3.) According to the learned Counsel, the reason for seeking production of the weekly report is to prove the apparent differences in the date and time given by the Investigating Officer in his deposition in court and the entries in the weekly report concerning those parts of the investigation.