Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

32. A similar arguments were also done by referring to spot map, Ex. P.14 prepared by Scientific Officer, Scene of Crime Mobile Unit (FSL), Distt. Morena.

33. Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the Appellants.

34. Spot Map (Crime Details Form), Ex. P.30 was prepared by J.S. Bhadoria (P.W. 21) on the information given by complainant Rustam Singh. He has specifically stated this fact in para 2 of his examination-in-chief. As already pointed out, Rustam Singh could not be examined as he was already murdered prior to his examination. J.S. Bhadoria (P.W.21) had prepared the spot map, Ex. P.30 on the instructions of Rustam Singh/complainant. Therefore, it is clear that according to J.S. Bhadoria (P.W.21), the spot map, Ex.P.30 was not prepared on the basis of what he had actually observed on the spot. Spot map, Ex. P.30 also bears the signatures of complainant/Rustam Singh. Thus, every information shown in the map, would be hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. and the description given in spot map, Ex. P.30 can only be used for corroboration or contradiction purposes.

In our opinion, the argument of the learned counsel is based on misconception of law laid down by this Court. What this Court has said is that the notes in question which are in the nature of a statement recorded by the Police Officer in the course of investigation would not be admissible. There can be no quarrel with this proposition. Note No. 4 in Ex. Ka- 18 is not a note which is based on the information given to the Investigating Officer by the witnesses but is a memo of what he himself found and observed at the spot. Such a statement does not fall within the four corners of Section 162 CrPC. In fact, documents like the inquest reports, seizure lists or the site plans consist of two parts one of which is admissible and the other is inadmissible. That part of such documents which is based on the actual observation of the witness at the spot being direct evidence in the case is clearly admissible under Section 60 of the Evidence Act whereas the other part which is based on information given to the Investigating Officer or on the statement recorded by him in the course of investigation is inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC except for the limited purpose mentioned in that section. For these reasons, therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision cited by the counsel for the Hotam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 620 of 2010) Rajbahadur Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 666 of 2010) appellants has no application to this case.

(Underline supplied)

36. The Supreme Court in the case of Sat Kumar v. State of Haryana, reported in (1974) 3 SCC 643 has held as under :

11.......Apart from this Ext. P.L. contains the title "plan of Village Uchana Kalan prepared on the pointing out of the witnesses in case (FIR) No. 172, dated August 9, 1967, for an offence under Section 307 IPC, relating to Police Station Narwana." It is clear that this site plan, which shows Mark No. 1 as the place of occurrence, is in consequence of a statement made during investigation to the ASI by some witness whose name even has not been disclosed. Since the ASI had already registered the case under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, after obtaining the first information report from Suraj Bhan and proceeded to the spot in the course of investigation, any statement made by witnesses during the course of investigation would be hit by Section 162(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and inadmissible in evidence except for the purpose of contradiction of the witness when examined in Court either by the accused or by prosecution with the leave of Court. A plan prepared in the way done showing the place of occurrence cannot be admissible in law and no reliance can be placed on the place of occurrence as indicated therein.

11. The High Court has extensively relied upon the site plan prepared by the investigating officer for discarding the prosecution case and for this purpose has referred to the place from where the accused are alleged to have entered the nohara, the place from where they are alleged to have fired upon the deceased and also has drawn an inference that the place wherefrom the accused are alleged to have fired upon the deceased, the shot could not have hit the Hotam Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 620 of 2010) Rajbahadur Singh Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No. 666 of 2010) houses on the eastern side of the nohara. Many things mentioned in the site plan have been noted by the investigating officer on the basis of the statements given by the witnesses. Obviously, the place from where the accused entered the nohara and the place from where they resorted to firing is based upon the statement of the witnesses. These are clearly hit by Section 162 CrPC. What the investigating officer personally saw and noted alone would be admissible. This legal position was explained in Tori Singh v. State of U.P. in the following words: (AIR p. 401, paras 7-8) A rough sketch map prepared by the Sub-Inspector on the basis of statements made to him by witnesses during the course of investigation and showing the place where the deceased was hit and also the places where the witnesses were at the time of the incident would not be admissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for it is in effect nothing more than the statement of the Sub-Inspector that the eyewitnesses told him that the deceased was at such and such place at the time when he was hit. The sketch map would be admissible so far as it indicates all that the Sub-