RAM BILASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code ') is directed against the order dated 12.12.1996 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in S.T. No. 29/93, whereby he dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 145 of the Evidence Act wherein the petitioner had prayed that he may be permitted to draw the attention of the PW 8 (in the course of her cross -examination) to her contradictory statement made before the police.

(2.) FROM the petition it appears that PW 8, Sumitra Devi Kaur was being examined as a witness in S.T. No. 29/93 before the Court on 10.12.1996. Earlier she was examined and her statement was recorded by the Police Sub -Inspector, Nathuni Yadav attached to Apradh Anusandhan of Mahila Apradh Kosang, Bihar, Patna at the instance of Superintendent of Police (CID). It further, appears that the Superintendent of Police (CID) was authorised by the Government of Bihar by an order dated 19.7.1989 to get the case investigated by CID. Under the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Sub -Inspector, Nathuni Yadav accordingly conducted the investigation in respect of this case and has also recorded the statement of PW 8, Sumitra Devi Kaur, which was reduced into writing by him. the petitioner who happened to be the accused in the case found major contradictions in the statement of this witness Maharani Fuels (P) Ltd. Versus State Of Bihar as given before the Court to her earlier statement recorded by this Sub -Inspector of Police in the course of the investigation. Also some major contradictions were found in her evidence as given in the Court to her earlier written report submitted before the police. Her statement made in her fardbeyan also different with her statement made before the Sub -Inspector of Police, Nathuni Yadav. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner wanted to draw the attention of PW 8 to her contradictory statements as recorded by Sub -Inspector, Nathuni Yadav under the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected this prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the investigation by the CID (Mahila Kosang) is not a part of investigation under Chapter XXII of the Code. Further ground of the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner was that Section 162 of the Code prohibits the use of the statement made under Section 161 of the Code for the purpose of corroboration. It has also been mentioned in this order that the CID (Mahila Kosang) was entrusted with the investigation of the case under this Chapter of the Code. The learned Court below also held that under law it is only the I.O. while acting under this Chapter of the Code that he can file the charge - sheet under Section 173 of the Code. Also the learned Court below has taken the stand that since the FIR in this case was not recorded by the CID the statement made by PW 8 before Shri Nathuni Yadav, Sub - Inspector of Police, CID) cannot be used for contradicting this witness under the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Also the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought it fit to reject this prayer of the petitioner on the ground that Sub - Inspector of Police (CID) was not as yet examined.

(3.) THE parties have heard in detail about the questions of law raised in this petition. It appears that on behalf of the petitioner attention of PW 8 was sought to be drawn to her alleged earlier statement made before the Police under the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. In this view of the matter I will firstly proceed to examine the scope of Section 145 of the Evidence Act. It runs as follows: ''