Justice Brijesh Sethi of Delhi HC allowed a criminal writ under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution coupled with Section 482 of CrPC where the petitioner-accused had prayed to the court to be allowed to confront the witness of the prosecution against his statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. The statement read, “Diary entry was recorded of my departure from police station on that day. I had instructed the DD Writer to record the entry of my departure. I do not know if the IO has seized the said diary entry.”
The trial court retorted and declined that permission stating that it was a fact emerged out of cross examination and not as a fact deposed. Hence it could not be confronted.
The petitioner was represented by Akshay Bhandari and Digvijay Singh. On the other hand Karan Jeet Rai Sharma fought against the petition.
The High Court after observing everything concluded that “As per section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, a witness can be contradicted with his previous statement. It is also a settled law that omission to mention the fact in the previous statement is contradiction and witness needs to be confronted with the said facts. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates that the previous statement recorded 161 Code of Criminal Procedure has to be confronted to the witness in accordance with Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. In these circumstances, if the petitioner is not allowed to confront the witness with his previous statement, prejudice will be caused to him and he will not be able to take advantage of the said contradiction.”
Under these said circumstances the HC held that in the interest in justice, the Court allowed the petition and instructed the trial court to allow the petitioner to confront the witness concerned as prayed for.
Deepak Kumar Chaudhury v. State