Summary
The accused was not entitled to a certified copy of the sexual-exploitation complainant’s Section 164 statement merely because a charge-sheet had been filed. The right arises after cognizance and issuance of process at the stage contemplated by Sections 207 and 208 CrPC, pursuant to appropriate court orders. The Court set aside the contrary High Court order despite the copy already having been supplied, emphasising confidentiality and its earlier directions in Shivanna.
Issues
- At what stage an accused becomes entitled to a copy of the complainant’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
- Whether the High Court could confine Shivanna’s confidentiality directions to police and apply an earlier contrary precedent.
Provisions considered
- Sections 207 and 208, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Located the entitlement to copies, including Section 164 statements, at the prescribed post-cognizance procedural stage rather than mere filing of the charge-sheet. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 19)
Held
- The scheme requires a police report, consideration by the Magistrate, cognizance and issuance of process before the accused’s entitlement to copies at the stage contemplated by Sections 207 and 208. Filing the charge-sheet alone does not trigger entitlement to the Section 164 statement. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Shivanna required the statement to be supplied to the investigating officer with a prohibition on disclosure before the police report. Its logical extension precluded supply to another person until appropriate post-cognizance orders; the High Court could not treat those directions as applicable only to police. (¶¶ 13, 14, 17, 18, 19)
- Utmost confidentiality was required in the sexual-exploitation matter. The earlier Division Bench decision allowing copies to any concerned applicant was subject to the Supreme Court’s later Shivanna directions as explained in this judgment. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
Result
Appeal allowed. High Court order directing supply of the certified statement set aside notwithstanding that it had already been supplied; the trial court’s rejection was upheld.