Judgment:
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 28.7.2001 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali by which he rejected the application dated 5.12.2000 filed by the petitioners by which they demanded the following documents:
(i) Forwarding letter of FSL articles by Superintendent of Police, Pali.
(ii) Photographs
(iii) Statements of Teja, Pema, Bhanwara, Dalla Ram, Ganesh Ram, Patta Ram, Shankar, Ganpat Singh, Bhanwar Singh and Shambhu Singh.
2. It may be stated here that the accused petitioners were facing trial for offence Under Sections 341, 323, 364, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with FIR No. 66/2000 of the Police Station, Shivpura, Distt. Pali.
3. In reply to that application filed by the accused, the Dy. Superintendent of Police admitted that on 9.7.2000, he enquired from Pema, Shankar, Ganesh, Dhagla Ram, Bhanwar and Teja Ram, but he did not record their statements.
4. The learned Special Judge through his order dated 28.7.2001 has observed that since statements of above named witnesses were not recorded by the police, therefore, no question arises for giving copy.
5. Aggrieved from the order dated 28.7.2001, this revision petition has been preferred by the accused petitioners.
6. In this revision petition it has been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that while passing the impugned order dated 28.7.2001, the learned Special Judge has not considered all the aspects mentioned in the application and, therefore, the order is erroneous one and it should be set aside.
7. I have heard.
8. So far as supplying of copy of statement recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is concerned, no doubt the police is bound to place before the Court all relevant evidence which enables the court to decide the matter and thus, as a rule the accused are entitled to copies of the statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. For that case of Devender Kaur v. State of Rqjasthan of this Court reported in RLR 1990 (2) 629 may be referred to.
9. No only this, the prosecution should also supply those statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on which they have not placed reliance, but have been demanded by the accused. For that case of Pradeep Kumar and Ors. v. State of Rqjasthan reported in 1994(3) Crimes 859 may be referred to. In other words, the accused are entitled to those statements recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which have not been filed with the charge-sheet. It may further be mentioned here that recording statements Under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and simply enquiring some facts from the witnesses are of two different nature.
10. Since in the present case, there is clear assertion on behalf of Dy. S.P. that the statements for which demand has been made were not recorded by him during investigation, therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly observed that in these circumstances they could not have been supplied, but the learned Special Judge has not discussed in the impugned order about the documents demanded at serial Nos. 1 and 2. For that it would be proper that the learned Special Judge should re-consider the matter.
With the above observations, the present revision petition stands disposed of.