High Court Reserves Verdict On Devangana Kalita’s Plea Seeking Preservation Of Case Diaries In 2020 Delhi Riots Case

The Delhi Excessive Court docket on Monday (July 7) reserved its verdict in a plea moved by Devangana Kalita searching for preservation and reconstruction of case diary pertaining to a 2020 Delhi riots case.

Kalita had moved the excessive court docket searching for setting apart of a November 6, 2024 trial court docket order which had refused her request and a route to Delhi Police to reconstruct and protect Booklets 9989 and 9990 made in reference to investigation of case titled ‘State v. Faizan & Ors.’ in FIR No. 48/2020 registered at Police Station-Jafrabad.

After listening to the events Justice Ravinder Dudeja mentioned, “Arguments heard. Reserved for order”.

Notably the excessive court docket had on December 2, 2024 directed that the case dairies concerned within the current case be preserved by the respondent and extra notably Quantity No. 9989 and Quantity No. 9990 including that any choice of the trial court docket shall be topic to the result of the plea earlier than the excessive court docket.

Through the listening to right this moment, advocate Adit Pujari argued that on the stage of arguments on cost, it was observed that case diaries which had been equipped and 161 statements that had been recorded within the police diary was anti-dated.

“Case diaries are duly paginated as per mandate of Part 172 CrPC. If they’re paginated it is just finished to guarantee that subsequent assertion is just not recorded prior; that you just can not insert statements and you’ve got a chronological thought of how investigation occurred,” Pujari mentioned.

“On this case we observed and identified to Justice of the Peace that on the stage of arguments on cost, subsequent statements have been recorded at prior pages. Our prayer was innocous it was to state that whereas 161 cant be relied upon, you could protect whole case diary because it stands to know precisely how investigation has taken place,” he added.

“Your request was just for preservation of the case diary?,” the court docket orally requested, to which Pujari mentioned, “preservation of case diary that means whole police diary; in order that whole quantity is preserved“.

The court docket mentioned, “after the chargesheet is filed the case diary is filed earlier than the court docket“. Pujari mentioned that case diary could be case diary of the whole FIR and there are police diaries that are duly paginated and voluminised and the place each day proceedings are recorded by every investigating officer.

Pujari mentioned that on this case it has been saved with the court docket.

He pointed to the trial court docket order which famous Pujari’s argument that he had sought to safe the entire booklet i.e. 9989 and 9990. Pujari mentioned that the trial court docket order famous that the SPP showing for the State had objected to the identical whereby he had mentioned that these booklets pertain to 2020 and 2021 and similar will need to have been utilized in different circumstances as nicely and calling these booklets will delay the matter additional.

He additional pointed to excessive court docket’s December 2024 interim order the place court docket had then directed the respondents to protect the case diaries.

“The interpretation sought to be levelled by prosecution, is that they are saying that case diary pertaining to this case restricts itself to web page numbers which are solely on this case…However complete level of whole train was to protect the whole case diary,” Pujari mentioned.

He mentioned that the petitioner’s prayer can not prejudice anybody. Argument of State is that that is onerous, however the longer one takes steps to protect the case diary the extra onerous it get, Pujari mentioned.

He mentioned that the petitioner has additionally raised an objection to the trial court docket’s view that Part 161 CrPC statements are to not be given weightage at this case. He mentioned that if case diaries will not be preserved right this moment it should “result in havoc subsequently” including that the petitioner was not asking to be proven these case diaries and that the identical can stay with the trial court docket.

In the meantime the counsel showing for the State mentioned that the whole case diary is already preserved and the whole police file on this case is with the Justice of the Peace.

He mentioned that the petitioner is attempting to broaden the scope of Part 172 to statements maybe recorded in different circumstances, which matches beyod scope of provision.

On the court docket’s question the state’s counsel mentioned, “These are booklets given to IO to file (Part) 161 statements; at instances it used as continuation sheet within the police file. Out of booklet containing 50 pages round 45-46 pages are a part of police file which has been preserved. It may need been that 2-3 pages may have misplaced throughout course of investigation however in as far as the vast majority of it’s involved it’s already a part of police file“.

The court docket nonetheless requested, “What’s the prejudice in preserving the whole police booklet 9989 and 9990?“. The counsel mentioned that the prayer of the petitioner is to be restricted to current case and never in 20 completely different circumstances.

“The volumes that he seeks preservation of already type a part of case diary in current case. It has already been preserved. Possibly 4-5 sheets have been utilized in one other case. It’s already in preservation of the court docket. Substantively it has been preserved, no matter is outdoors he’s not entitled to manufacturing,” the State’s counsel mentioned.

“He’s not asking for manufacturing; it is just for preservation,” the court docket remarked.

Pujari additional mentioned that they had been asking for preservation and reconstruction of case diaries. He mentioned that he was searching for reconstruction of a doc relied on by prosecution.

The court docket nonetheless mentioned, “The doc is already there. The fabric is on the market and is a part of case diary. The court docket could look into it at applicable stage. When you present that sure statements are anti-dated the court docket is free to look into it. Solely factor is you’ll want to level out that these statements are anti-dated, that you are able to do there (trial court docket) additionally“.

On Pujari’s argument relating to impact of anti-dating the court docket orally mentioned that in these proceedings it was not contemplating impact of anti courting and that might be taken care of by trial court docket throughout course of trial.

“If there’s a assertion which court docket feels is anti-dated then court docket could make an opinion accordingly. Your restricted request is just for preservation of case diary and reconstruction as you say,” the court docket orally mentioned.

After listening to the events the excessive court docket reserved it verdict.

Case title: DEVANGANA KALITA V/s STATE NCT OF DELHI