USHA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O. P. Jain, J. The brief facts leading to this application under Section 482, Cr PC are that on 20-5-93 an FIR was lodged under Section 380,1pc at police Station Rampur by one Mahinder Singh. This was registered as crime no. 150/93. Police Station Rampur investigated the case and submitted a charge-sheet. However, the State Government ordered an investigation by CBCID who with the permission of the court, reinvestigated the matter and again recorded the statements of witnesses, CB, C1d came to the conclusion that no case was made out against the applicant and a final report was sub mitted by them through proper channel. The learned Magistrate rejected the final report submitted by CB, CID and took cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge-sheet filed by police station Rampur.

(2.) DURING the trial an application was filed on behalf of Usha Devi that the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded by CB, CID may be supplied to the accused. The application filed by Smt. Usha Devi on 30-8-94 is Annexure '5'. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate on the same day vide Annexure '6' on the ground that under Section 207, Cr PC the accused is entitled to get copies of the statements of only those witnesses on whom the prosecution relies. Therefore, the copies of the state ments of witnesses recorded by CB, CID cannot be supplied to the accused. Being aggrieved by the refusal of learned Magistrate to supply the copies the present application under Section 482, Cr PC has been filed

(3.) IN para 17 of the application under Section 482, Cr PC it is mentioned emphatically that the 2nd INvestigating Officer (CB, CID) has recorded the statement of the same witnesses who were examined earlier by police station Rampur. IN para 17 the names of the witnesses have also been given as Mahinder Singh, Junar Singh, Vikram, Randhir and Smt. Sareso all resi dents of Nayagaon. If the same set of persons has been examined by police station, Rampur as well by CB, CID and the witnesses have made different statements before the two investigating agencies, the accused is entitled to get copies of both the statements made by each witness. There may be a case where one investigating agency may rely on the statements of witnesses A, Band C while the other investigating agency may rely on the statement of witnesses X, Y and Z. IN such a case if the prosecution intends to pro duce only witnesses X, Y and Z during the trial, the statements of witnesses A, B and C need not be furnished to the accused. This however is not the case here. INvestigating agencies have examined the same set of witnesses who are said to have made different statements before each investigating agency. Therefore, the accused is entitled to get copies of both the statements. 5-A. The above view is supported by 1988 Crlj 42-Dalia and another v. State of Rajastftan, 1984 Crlc 864-5. J. Chowdhary v. State and 1974 Crlj 1373-State of Kerala v. Raghavan and others.