JODH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, has been challenged whereby the Court declined to put questions to a defence witness on the touch stone of a statement he made before the police.

(2.) SOME of the uncontested facts are these. There was an occurrence. One version was reported to the police by one party. The other version was reported to the police by Walaiti Ram. That statement he made to the police officers with a view to setting the criminal law in motion. The said statement was recorded in writing which was stately read out to him and allegedly signed by him. It has the colour of a statement made under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Police seemingly did not take any action on such statement, for in their opinion, no investigation was required. A trial was held to pursue the opposite version against a set of accused before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot. At the stage of defence, they put up Walaiti Ram as a defence witness. Now this defence witness was sought to be confronted with the statement made to the police, of which he was the alleged author. The purpose was to contradict him within the meaning of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, treating the same to be a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to which the taint of Section 162, Criminal Procedure Code, would be attracted. The learned Judge did not permit the witness to be contradicted with the aforesaid statement. As an alternate, when the prayer was made to the Court to put questions to the witness in the same light in its own quest of justice, the Court declined to accede to the prayer of the Public Prosecutor. And this is the grouse which is being projected in this petition.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I can find no fault with the view taken by the learned Judge which need the corrected by this Court under its inherent powers. But seemingly the Court did not view the said statement made before the police in the light of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Perhaps something could be said on both sides in this regard. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in sum and substance, that was the prayer made to the Court. As is plain from the impugned order, the prayer was not projected in this manner, for the Court has not dealt with it in this way. So far as the Court to put questions is concerned, that is within its discretion and this Court will not correct it in proceedings under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure.