SHRI TRIDIB SHARMA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for revision of the order dated 17.11.1984 passed by Sessions Judge, Gauhati rejecting, inter alia, the prayer of culling for previous statements of all the witnesses recorded and the report submitted by an Inquiry Committee constituted by the Government of Assam.

(2.) THE Petitioner, along with four others, is standing trial in Sessions Case No. 71 (K.G) of 1984, in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kamrup on charges under Section 307 I.P.C. and Sections 25(1B) (A) and 26(1) of the Arms (Amendment) Act, 1983 on the allegations, inter alia, that on 19.11.1983 at about 5.15 P.M. while the Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Hiteswar Saikia with his wife, after attending a function in the Rabindra Bhawan, Gauhati, was boarding his car in front of the main gate for returning to his residence, the Petitioner made an attempt on his life by aiming a loaded revolver on his forehead, that the Petitioner was possessing the revolver without any valid document; that the Petitioner was immediately overpowered and taken to custody; and that the District Magistrate, Kamrup and many other Police Officers and men witnessed the occurrence.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court the Petitioner urged, inter alia, that the aforesaid statements of the witnesses and the inquiry report would be necessary for the purpose of contradicting the common witnesses in course of cross examination under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge initiated a preliminary enquiry in the matter of calling for the statements and the report in course of which the prosecution objected to the prayer and the Government of Assam; filing an affidavit, claimed privilege in respect of all those statements and the report under Sections 123 and 124 read with Section 162 of the Indian Evidence Act stating that it was a confidential inquiry to find out lapses of the security force which led to the untoward incident and it had no connection with the actual crime alleged to have been committed by the accused person, and that their publication would be detrimental to the public interest. Though the Petitioner urged that those would be necessary for his defence and that the public interest in proper administration of justice would out weigh the public interest in maintaining the secrecy in the matter of the statement and the report, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer holding, inter alia, that the purpose of the Enquiry Committee was for security lapses and not for the purpose of the crime committed; that those statements before the Enquiry Committee would not in any way prejudice the accused persons standing trial in the case as they have already been furnished with the statements of witnesses recorded by police under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure; and that those documents were related to the affairs of the State and under Section 162 of the Evidence Act, the Government had every right to claim privilege for not sending them to the Court. Hence this petition.