RAM KHELAWAN PATEL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT , who is an accused in S.T. No. 739/01 pending before the Special Court of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Satna, has filed this revision against the order dated 21-5-2003, whereby his application for supplying the copy of the statements of witnesses recorded by SDO(P) was dismissed. During investigation of the case, statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. On the request of the accused, re-investigation of the case was also done by the SDO(P), Maihar and in that course statements of about 15 witnesses were recorded by him. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed for trial. Before the trial Court, applicant had earlier moved an application for supplying the copies of the statements recorded by the SDO(P) during re-investigation. His application was dismissed by the trial Court. Against that order, the applicant had filed a revision before the High Court, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 1189/02. That revision was disposed of on 19-10-2002 with the observations that the applicant may file fresh application before the trial Court accompanied by previous orders of the High Court, relevant on the point and the trial Court shall consider his application in the light of those precedents.

(2.) THE applicant moved fresh application on 28-12-2002 before the trial Court annexing copies of the order passed in Cr. Revision No. 483/1981 Ramkaran Gupta v. State of M.P. and Cr. Revision No. 13/96(G) Naresh Dhakad v. State of M.P., decided on 29-2-1996. Learned trial Court, after due consideration of the facts of the case and the precedents cited by the applicant dismissed his application by the impugned order, aggrieved whereby, the applicant has filed this revision. As per the grounds taken in the revision memo. the applicant had contended that the trial Court should have supplied the copies of the statements of all the witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer or the SDO(P) during the investigation or the re-investigation of the case.

(3.) IN Naresh Dhakad v. State of M.P., 1996(2) RCR(Crl.) 700 : 1997(1) MPWN 81, it was held that if the investigating agency had recorded the statements of witnesses more than once, there may be material contradictions in the same and the accused may like to utilize the same for his benefit, therefore, the copies of the statements of such witnesses should be provided to him because due to non-supply of the copies, the purpose for enacting the provision of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code shall be frustrated.