PALANISWAMI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition by the accused. The circumstances under which this petition is filed, are as follows:

(2.) ONE Karuppathal, wife of Palanivalayam alias Palani, preferred a complaint on 26. 6. 1984 to the Station House Officer, karumathampatti Police Stationstating that her husband was not traceable from the night of 9. 6. 1984. The complaint was registered in Crime No. 90 of 1984. Earlier, on 10. 6. 1984, the second petitioner (2nd accused) preferred a complaint stating that on the night of 9 or 10. 6. 1984 at Ponnaian Thottam, two unidentified persons attempted to commit theft of coconuts and when the 3rd petitioner and himself attempted catch hold of the thieves, the latter inflicted knife injuries to them. On receipt of intimation from the hospital, a case in cr. No. 78 of 1984 under Sec. 379 read with Sec. 511 and Sec. 324, I. P. C. , was registered. It was directed by the Superintendent of Police, Coimbatore Rural that both the aforesaid cases the transferred for further investigation to the district Crime Branch, Coimbatore Rural District. On 6. 8. 1984, they were so transferred and reassigned numbers D. C. B. Cr. Nos. 5/84 and 6/84 in respect of the complaints preferred by the 2nd petitioner herein and Karuppathal, respectively.

(3.) SEC. 207, Criminal Procedure Code enumerates the documents, copy of which should be made mandatorily furnished to the accused. SEC. 173 (5) (b) slates that the statements of witnesses include all the statements made to police officer after the case was registered. Therefore, the prosecution had to file not only the statements made before the Investigating officer who filed the final report, but also before the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In this connection, the trial Court has ordered that all the statements made by all the witnesses proposed to be examined made by them before the Deputy Superintendent of Police be produced before Court by its order dated 13. 12. 1985 in C. M. P. No. 420 of 1983. If any of such documents remained to be produced and if the accused have not received copies of any such document, they are entitled to get the same under SEC. 207, Criminal Procedure code. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that even the report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in this matter to the superintendent of Police should also be filed and its copies made available to the accused. Such a document does not form part of the documents listed out in sec. 207, Criminal Procedure Code. In this case, the prosecution does not propose to rely upon this document. In fact, what is essential for the accused and for the Court is to know what the prosecution witnesses have said from the beginning. But what opinion the Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived at on the basis of such documents, has no value whatever. I therefore see no reason as to how the accused are aggrieved by the non-production of the copy of that report and I therefore, see no merit in this petition and accordingly it shall stand dismissed.