RAJESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case FIR No. 52 dated 21.3.1994 under Sections 452, 323/34, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Safidon, pending trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, it transpired during the cross -examination of the prosecution witnesses that Bhupinder Singh and Poonam two eye witnesses to the occurrence were questioned by Om Parkash DSP Safidon on 22.3.1994 and their statements were recorded in the case diary. The copies of these two statements had not been supplied to the accused. The accused moved an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind for being supplied the copies of the statements of Bhupinder Singh and Poonam recorded by Om Parkash, DSP on 22.3.1994 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The Additional Sessions Judge Jind declined that application vide order dated 30.7.1996 (Annexure P -1).

(2.) AGGRIEVED from this order dt. 30.7.1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind accused Rajesh and Sumera have invoked the inherent powers of this Court vesting in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. where through they have prayed the quashment of order Annexure P -1 and the direction to the prosecution to supply them the copies of the statements of Bhupinder Singh and Poonam recorded by Om Parkash DSP Safidon on 22.3.1994, and thereafter to afford opportunity to the accused to cross examine the said two eye witnesses in the light of those statements.

(3.) THROUGH return put in by the State of Haryana in the form of affidavit of Raja Ram, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer, Police Station, Safidon, Distt. Jind this prayer of the petitioners has been opposed, urging that Sh. Om Parkash DSP was the supervisory officer exercising supervision on the work of Police Station, Safidon and in that capacity he verified the investigation on 22.3.1994 at the spot and Bhupinder Singh and Poonam simply re -iterated what they had stated before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. No. question of the supply of the copies of statements of Bhupinder Singh and Poonam alleged to have been recorded by Sh. Om Parkash, DSP could arise as he did not record their statements. Their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had been recorded by Investigating Officer and the copies of those statements had been supplied to the accused. There was no need to record their statements by Sh. Om Parkash DSP, Safidon as he simply verified the investigation. He only recorded case diary and not separate statements.