BALAKRAM versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

BALAKRAM versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.

Since neither the police officer refreshed his memory nor the trial court used the police diary for contradiction, the accused cannot produce police diary pages obtained under the Right to Information Act to contradict the police officer. The High Court erred in permitting such production. The unfettered right to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Balakram; Respondent: State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Misc. Application No. 1123 of 2016
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Police Diary, Cross Examination, Right to Information Act, Contradiction of Police Witness, Case Diary Inspection
Criminal Law Police Diary Cross Examination Right to Information Act Contradiction of Police Witness Case Diary Inspection

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balakram

Appellant

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Order of High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Misc. Application No. 1123 of 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused can use extracts of police diary obtained under the Right to Information Act for the purpose of contradicting a police officer during cross-examination
  2. 2 Scope of the accused's right to inspect and use police diary under Section 172 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

Since neither the police officer refreshed his memory nor the trial court used the police diary for contradiction, the accused cannot produce police diary pages obtained under the Right to Information Act to contradict the police officer. The High Court erred in permitting such production. The unfettered right to inspect case diary rests with the court, not the accused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside.

Orders

  • The accused is not permitted to produce pages of police diary obtained under the Right to Information Act during cross-examination of the investigating officer.
  • High Court's order permitting such production is set aside.