Admissibility of Correspondence Between IO and Senior: Karnataka High Court's Interpretation of Section 91 CrPC

The Karnataka High Court recently issued a statement in regards to reports prepared by an investigating officer in discussion with his higher officers, before filing chargesheet. The court noted that these documents cannot be produced before the court for the purpose of evidence, except for documents produced by the investigation officer under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

The statement was made in response to a petition filed by accused Siddappa B H, who had challenged the order of the special court rejecting his application under Section 91 CrPC for summoning the alleged three reports submitted by the investigation officer. The accused had also sought to cross examine the investigating officer and summon his wife as witnesses, along with the other eight witnesses.

The prosecution argued that the documents in question were correspondence within their administration and confidential, and thus could not be produced before the court for the purpose of evidence. They further stated that the opinion formed by the officials during investigation could not be a part of the case and therefore, could not be verified by the petitioner.

In regards to summoning the investigating officer for further cross examination, the prosecution argued that he had retired and was now suffering from Parkinson’s disease and had lost his memory.

The bench noted that the police had already investigated the matter and filed chargesheet long back in 2008. The investigation officer had been examined in full by the prosecution and cross examined by the accused.

The court ultimately rejected the plea for summoning of reports, stating that any investigation papers which are in the case diary of the investigation cannot be summoned or summoning the same for contradiction under Section 145 of the Evidence Act is barred under Section 172(3) of CrPC.

However, the court allowed the plea for summoning the accused himself as witness and examining his wife as witness. The court noted that it was the accused’s right to explain or rebut the evidence of the prosecution, and that if he did not enter the witness box, an adverse inference could be drawn against him. The court directed the trial court to take the matter on a day today basis and dispose it of in accordance with law.