DHANANJAY KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Wanting to pick some chinks In the armour of the prosecution, the petitioner filed two different applications under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code', for short) before the Learned Trial Court. However, vide Order dated 4-10-2004, the Learned Trial Court rejected the said applications by a common order. Hence, this petition before us.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner allegedly kidnapped Smt. Sumedha Durlabhji, a member of a prominent family of Jaipur. He is facing a trial for offences under Section 364A, 344, and 120B IPC. During the course of the trial, the petitioner moved two applications under Section 91 of the Code. In the first application, dated 24-9-2004, he pointed out that Mr. Hemant Sharma, who was working in the Police Department in the Jodhpur Range, and Mr. Umaid Singh who was functioning as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the ACP and few other police officers were constituted into different investigating teams by the DIG, Range 1, Jaipur vide letter No. 825 to 833, 837 to 847, 848 to 878. He requested that these letters be summoned from the police as they would be needed for the just decision of the case. By another application, dated 26-10-2004, he asked for summoning of "Roznamchas" (General Case Diaries) of Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Transport Nagar, Malviya Nagar and Moti Dungari in Jaipur. He further pleaded that Mr. Om Prakash from Police Station Bajaj Nagar and Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Sub-Inspector, have appeared as witnesses in the criminal case. They need to be cross-examined with respect to these 'Roznamchas', Therefore it is imperative that these 'Roznamchas' be summoned by the Court. However, vide Order dated 4-10-2004, the Learned Trial Court dismissed both the applications.

(3.) Mr. Sudeep Hora, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has raised many contentions before us. Firstly, the Constitutionof India provides for safeguarding the "life or personal liberty" of every person. The State can deprive a person of his "Life or personal liberty", but by following a procedure established by law. Secondly, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the accused has the right to defend his "life" and