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

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

Kalita had moved the high court seeking setting aside of a November 6, 2024 trial court order which had refused her request and a direction to Delhi Police to reconstruct and preserve Booklets 9989 and 9990 made in connection with investigation of case titled 'State v. Faizan & Ors.' in FIR No. 48/2020 registered at Police Station-Jafrabad. 

After hearing the parties Justice Ravinder Dudeja said, "Arguments heard. Reserved for order". 

Notably the high court had on December 2, 2024 directed that the case dairies involved in the present case be preserved by the respondent and more particularly Volume No. 9989 and Volume No. 9990 adding that any decision of the trial court shall be subject to the outcome of the plea before the high court.

During the hearing today, advocate Adit Pujari argued that at the stage of arguments on charge, it was noticed that case diaries which were supplied and 161 statements that were recorded in the police diary was anti-dated. 

"Case diaries are duly paginated as per mandate of Section 172 CrPC. If they are paginated it is only done to make sure that subsequent statement is not recorded prior; that you cannot insert statements and you have a chronological idea of how investigation happened," Pujari said. 

"In this case we noticed and pointed out to Magistrate that at the stage of arguments on charge, subsequent statements have been recorded at prior pages. Our prayer was innocous it was to state that while 161 cant be relied upon, you must preserve entire case diary as it stands to know exactly how investigation has taken place," he added.

"Your request was only for preservation of the case diary?," the court orally asked, to which Pujari said, "preservation of case diary meaning entire police diary; so that entire volume is preserved".

The court said, "after the chargesheet is filed the case diary is filed before the court". Pujari said that case diary would be case diary of the entire FIR and there are police diaries which are duly paginated and voluminised and where daily proceedings are recorded by each investigating officer. 

Pujari said that in this case it has been kept with the court. 

He pointed to the trial court order which noted Pujari's argument that he had sought to secure the complete booklet i.e. 9989 and 9990. Pujari said that the trial court order noted that the SPP appearing for the State had objected to the same wherein he had said that these booklets pertain to 2020 and 2021 and same must have been used in other cases as well and calling these booklets will delay the matter further.

He further pointed to high court's December 2024 interim order where court had then directed the respondents to preserve the case diaries.

"The interpretation sought to be levelled by prosecution, is that they say that case diary pertaining to this case restricts itself to page numbers that are only in this case...But whole point of entire exercise was to preserve the entire case diary," Pujari said. 

He said that the petitioner's prayer cannot prejudice anyone. Argument of State is that this is onerous, but the longer one takes steps to preserve the case diary the more onerous it get, Pujari said. 

He said that the petitioner has also raised an objection to the trial court's view that Section 161 CrPC statements are not to be given weightage at this case. He said that if case diaries are not preserved today it will "lead to havoc subsequently" adding that the petitioner was not asking to be shown these case diaries and that the same can remain with the trial court. 

Meanwhile the counsel appearing for the State said that the entire case diary is already preserved and the entire police file in this case is with the magistrate. 

He said that the petitioner is trying to broaden the scope of Section 172 to statements perhaps recorded in other cases, which goes beyod scope of provision. 

On the court's query the state's counsel said, "These are booklets given to IO to record (Section) 161 statements; at times it used as continuation sheet in the police file. Out of booklet containing 50 pages around 45-46 pages are part of police file which has been preserved. It might have been that 2-3 pages could have misplaced during course of investigation but in so far as the majority of it is concerned it is already part of police file".

The court however asked, "What is the prejudice in preserving the entire police booklet 9989 and 9990?". The counsel said that the prayer of the petitioner is to be restricted to present case and not in 20 different cases. 

"The volumes that he seeks preservation of already form part of case diary in present case. It has already been preserved. Maybe 4-5 sheets have been used in another case. It is already in preservation of the court. Substantively it has been preserved, whatever is outside he is not entitled to production," the State's counsel said. 

"He is not asking for production; it is only for preservation," the court remarked. 

Pujari further said that they were asking for preservation and reconstruction of case diaries. He said that he was seeking reconstruction of a document relied on by prosecution. 

The court however said, "The document is already there. The material is available and is part of case diary. The court may look into it at appropriate stage. If you show that certain statements are anti-dated the court is free to look into it. Only thing is you need to point out that these statements are anti-dated, that you can do there  (trial court) also". 

On Pujari's argument regarding effect of anti-dating the court orally said that in these proceedings it was not considering effect of anti dating and that would be taken care of by trial court during course of trial. 

"If there is a statement which court feels is anti-dated then court may make an opinion accordingly. Your limited request is only for preservation of case diary and reconstruction as you say," the court orally said. 

After hearing the parties the high court reserved it verdict. 

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