Shivani murder case: Case diary denied to Sharma by SC is crucial

Abhinav Garg & K Sriharsha / TNN / Mar 18, 2008, 02:25 IST

Text Size

Small
Medium
Large

When a fast-track court delivers the verdict in the Shivani murder case, it would be of some interest to note how far the judge relies on evidence contained in the case diary.

Shivani murder case: Case diary denied to Sharma by SC is crucial

NEW DELHI: When a fast-track court of additional sessions judge Rajendra Kumar Shastri delivers the verdict in the nine-year-old Shivani Bhatnagar murder case, it would be of some interest to note how far the judge relies on evidence contained in the case diary �� as this was a document which saw a parallel legal battle being fought by the defence and prosecution, all the way upto the Supreme Court, even stalling the trial in between.
Sharma had sought access to the case diary on the plea that it contained information which could help him defend himself better. This demand for copies of the case diary first surfaced during the examination of one of the prosecution witnesses, inspector Sukhvinder, on March 6, 2006.
A case diary typically refers to records maintained by cops in a case, which includes statements of witnesses, as also observations made by the investigation officers concerned. The defence believed that the case diary in Shivani case contained key observations made by the then investigation officer (IO) against Shivani's husband, Rakesh Bhatnagar, and gaining access to it could help Sharma punch holes in the prosecution's case and prepare a foolproof defence.
Sharma's lawyers insisted in court that it was the accused's right to defend himself and have access to the case diary, claiming that lack of access to Bhatnagar's statements was hampering his case.

The prosecution, however, belatedly woke up to this document's significance and protested, saying that supplying copies of the case diary to the accused was not mandatory, as this was essentially a prosecution document, meant to be shared only with the court. It also alleged that this was just a ploy by the accused to prolong the trial.
Acting on Sharma's plea the court decided that certain portions, which contained a summary of statements made by Shivani's husband, could be provided to Sharma, but not the observations made by the IO.

An alarmed prosecution then moved the Delhi High Court, which initially stayed the lower court's order till April 20, 2006, but later in May, upheld the decision.
Even as an elated Sharma prepared to browse through copies of the case diary and base his defence on Bhatnagar's statements, the prosecution made a last-ditch attempt to shield this information and moved the Supreme Court, challenging the HC order through a Special Leave Petition (SPL).
The apex court granted an interim stay on the order till August 4, 2006. Later, a Supreme Court bench ruled in the prosecution's favour, upholding that only the courts were empowered to call for such information collected by the probe agency. It saw no merit in Sharma's plea that case diary should be handed over to him.

End of Article