Exhibition of the statement of the deceased recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. during his lifetime
The revision had been directed against the order of the Trial Court
whereby the statement of the deceased recorded under S.161, Cr. P. C. during his life
tune was refused to be exhibited while recording the statement of Investigating
Officer, Statement required to be exhibited was part of the record annexed with
the report submitted under S.173, Cr. P. C. and the same had been cross-examined by
the defence. Exhibition of a document was in fact a piece of evidence subject
to cross-examination; it could or could not be accepted by the Trial Court
at the time of final judgment, but the exhibition of the swine during
proceedings of the case could not be denied simply for the reason that it was
not put to the witness at the time of examination-in-chief. The existence of the
statement in question had not been challenged, If counsel for
petitioner/prosecution, inadvertently did not exhibit the said statement, the prosecution was introducing new evidence or by doing so prosecution was
trying to fill up any lacuna which would prejudice the accused. Re-examination of any
person already examined at any stage of proceedings, if appeared to be
essential for just determination of the controversy, same could be recalled, as
provided under S.540, Cr.P.C. Search of truth was the primary duty imposed upon
the court for administration of justice and the court could not base its
opinion merely on technicalities. The statement required to be exhibited was very
much essential for just the decision of the case---Trial Court was not justified to
observe that prosecution wanted to fill up the lacuna. The reason given by the
Trial Court was not well-founded because the matter was not of filling up the
lacuna or giving any advantage to the parties, but the object was to search for the
truth and reach at a definite conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of the accused. The contention that benefits arising out of non-exhibition of the statement of a witness under S.161, Cr.P.C could be
availed by the accused only and prosecution was not entitled to get the benefit of
same, was not well-founded, because the courts were not required to indulge
info benefits of one party or the other; but were required under law to look
into the evidence available which would enable the court to reach at the definite
conclusion with regard to the guilt or innocence of accused.
CAUTIONARY PROCLAMATION
The main object of this post is to provide information
and education, the writer will not take any responsibility for the statement in
case to present it in court or other legal forms, the professionals are
advised to consult the original judgment from the authentic source for further clarifications
and utilization accordingly.