[Section 4, Cr.P.C.]
Officer-incharge of a Police Station S.H.O. i.e. Station House Officer. By a Judicial Notification No. 3 dated 31 January 1883 the Senior Constable present at Police Station shall be deemed to be the officer incharge for the time being during the absence of the officer incharge. 12 Cr.LJ 190 K. Kavandan.
Under-trial prisoner can be kept in police custody at "Police Station" only; Detention of person in place other than one notified as `Police Station' within the meaning of section 4(1) (s) is illegal. (DB) PLD 1965 Lah. 324. State v. Muhammad Yousf.
POLICE DIARIES OR ZIMINIS
Ziminis of a case different from one under trial are not barred by Section 162. (DB) PLD 1958 Lah. 242. Rang Ali. AIR 1936 Lah. 359. (FB) PLD 1978 Lah. 523. State v. Z.A. Bhutto.
Statement on record "Whether in a police diary or otherwise. It is quite clear that there is no distinction between a statement recorded under Section 162 or a statement recorded under Section 172, Cr.P.C. It also does not matter whether the statement was made or all or was reduced into writing whether in extenso or in abridged form it is set out in a Special diary under section 172 or any other document or whether it is proposed to adduce oral evidence of the contents of the statement. AIR 1935 Sindh 145, Hari. 34 Cr.LJ 127. Hamid Khan. (FB) 36 Cr.LJ 1487 Nga. Lun Thung. 32 Cr.LJ 628 Bansidhar.
Counter-case. Where the diary relates not to the case which is actually being tried out but to the counter-case, Section 172, does not in terms apply but the principles laid down therein do apply. AIR 1944 Cal. 243. Ahmed Mia v. Emperor.
Contravention of section 172. The Police Officers are requited to enter proceedings in a diary from day to day. 35 Cr.LJ 1180. Jahangir. The absence of the diary, however, does not vitiate the trial. 32 Cr.LJ 638 Hafiz Muhammad. A contravention of section 172 lays the evidence of the police officer open to adverse criticism and may diminish its values but it does not have the effect of making that evidence inadmissible. (PC) 51 CWN 555 Zahir-ud-Din v. King. PLD 1947 P.C. 13.
Refreshing memory. A criminal Court may permit the police officer where made the special diary to look at it to refresh his memory, or may use for the purpose of showing contradiction between the statement recorded in the diary and the evidence which the police officer is giving in Court. A special diary cannot be used to enable any witness other than the police officer who made it to refresh his memory by looking it and cannot be used to contradict any witness other than such Police Officer. (PC) 44 Cal. 876 Dal Singh.
Refusal to look at the diary to refresh the memory. If a sub-inspector does not remember what certain witnesses stated at the investigation and refuses to refresh his memory from the diaries, the Court should compel him to look into the diaries. AIR 1924 Pat. 829 Mohy-ud-Din.
Penalty for refusal to look into the diary. Should a police officer refuse (to look into the police diary) to assist the Court he would not only be failing in his duty both as a witness and an officer of Public Justice, but would also be liable to exactly the same penalty as any other witness who refuses to give evidence which is within his knowledge and is not affected by any particular claim of privilege. No question of privilege can arise when the question is only about the presence of blood stains or injuries, and it is desired to obtain the best possible evidence on the point. AIR 1942 Lah. 89 = ILR 23 Lah. 470. Fatnaya Lal v. Emp.
Contradicting the Police Officer. The Diary is permitted to be used for the limited purpose of contradicting the Police Officer and not for the purpose of corroborating him. 22 Cr.LJ 374 Achhaibat. 32 Cr.LJ 735 Sakal v. Palakdhari.
When accused can see the diary. The accused or his agent is not entitled to call for or see the diary until it is used by the Police or by the court for the purpose described in Section 172. 26 Cr.LJ 297. Rabindra. The reason is that if the accused were entitled to inspect the diary, the Police Officer making the investigation would omit from the diary all information which he believed would be injurious to the prosecution. The accused is entitled to inspect the diary when the diary is used by the court for the purpose of enabling the Police Officer who made it to refresh his memory or when the diary is used for the purpose of contradicting him. (FB) 19 All. 390 Mannu. (FB) AIR 1935 Rang. 370 = 36 Cr.LJ 1487 Nga Lun.
What portion can be seen by the accused. The accused is entitled to see only the particular entry used; by the court and the Police Officer to refresh his memory or to contradict him and so much of it as in the opinion of the court is necessary in that particular matter to the full understanding of the particular entry, and no more. (FB) 19 All. 390 Mannu. 2 Pat. 74 Lachmi.
Police diary; court can suo motu look into it and can question witnesses to contradict evidence. AIR 1934 Cal. 521 (b) Lal Mia.
Use of Police Diaries by court. The court may use the diaries in the course of trial for the purpose of clearing up obscurities, in the evidence or bringing out relevant facts which the court thinks are material in the interest of a fair trial. 26 Cr.LJ 1308 Muhammad v. Emp.
Police diaries; may be referred to by the court for its satisfaction but not to take into consideration effect of inadmissible evidence as corroborating circumstance appearing on record of the case. (DB) PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Lah.) 120. Muhammad Ashraf.
The only legitimate purpose for which the Police diary may be used is to assist the court which tried the case by suggesting means of further elucidating points which need clearing up and which are material for doing justice between the Crown and the accused but not as containing entries which can by themselves be taken to be evidence of any date, fact or statement contained in the diary. (DB) 43 Cr. LJ (1942 Pat.) 36 Dikson Mali etc. v. Emp.
Improper use of police diaries. The appellate court relied on the sole P.W. because on referring to the police diary the court found that the P.W. was examined at the earliest and he made the same statement before the police. Held, this is improper use of police diaries. AIR 1926 Lah. 363. Fazal etc.
Ziminis and defence story. Defence story not mentioned in police diaries and therefore disbelieved. Such a course is forbidden by Cr.P.C. (DB) AIR 1926 Lah. 485 Dini.
Police Diary, use of as evidence in a case is wrong. (PC) AIR 1917 P.C. 25 (c) = 44 IA 137 Dal Singh v. Emp. (FB) 19 All. 390 Mannu.
Police diaries have no evidentiary value. These cannot be looked into by the accused. Where a court goes through these diaries its mind is bound to be influenced by it. (DB) NLR 1984 Cr. 304. Allah Yar.
Court to see police diary to aid itself in arriving at correct conclusion. In suitable cases court can direct the Police Officer to refer to case diary and give answers. (DB) PLD 1974 Kar. 91 Ghulam Hussain.
Court is not justified in using Police diary to the prejudice of the accused if the defence requested to examine it. Where the Judge has perused the Police diary, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that he had allowed his mind to be influenced by what he found in the diary and what was not before him. In such a case the conviction cannot be maintained. (DB) 48 Cr. LJ (Pat.) 165 Yousaf etc. v. Emp. 227 Ind. Cas. 625 = AIR 1946 Pat. 127.
Use by court. Facts and statements written in police diaries cannot be used as materials to help the court in a criminal trial to come to a finding on the evidence in the case. The court should discover in the Police diaries any matter of importance bearing upon the case and then call for the necessary evidence to have that matter legally proved. (DB) 3 Cr. LJ 408 Syed Abdul Rahim v. Salhu Kherwar ((Cal.).
Use of statements in police diary. Even when the Investigating Officer has been examined and discharged, the court has power to recall him and the witnesses suo motu and make use of police diary to bring out discrepancies in the evidence and can put question to the witnesses for the purpose. (DB) 45 Cr. LJ 99 Emp v. Lal Mia. 209 IC 206.
Reference to police diary in judgment is uncalled for, as it gives rise to erroneous impression. Mere perusal of suc