Case Diary is an important tool in the criminal investigation process, ensuring that all actions taken by the police are documented and are open to scrutiny by police and the courts.
1. What is a Case Diary?
A Case Diary refers to the record maintained by the police during the investigation of a criminal case. It is essentially a document where all details about the investigation process, including the progress, actions taken, statements recorded, evidence collected, and other pertinent facts, are systematically noted by the Investigating Officer (IO).
The Case Diary includes details such as the date and time of various events, the statements of witnesses, arrests made, seizures, actions taken by the investigating officer, and any other relevant developments in the case.
2. Purpose of Case Diary
The primary purpose of the Case Diary is to create a chronological record of the investigation, ensuring transparency and accountability. It helps maintain a detailed log of the progress of investigation, thereby serving as a tool for the superior officers to monitor and supervise the progress of investigation.
Besides ensuring transparency, Case Diary also helps in checking fairness of the police investigation. Courts are empowered to use them in case the situation warrants contradicting the Investigating Officer’s testimony (Section 172(3) of CrPC).
3. Legal Provisions for Case Diary
Under Section 172 of CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code) and Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the police are required to maintain the Case Diary during the investigation.
Section 172 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 172. Diary of proceedings in investigation. (1) Every police officer making an investigation under this Chapter shall day by day enter his proceedings in the investigation in a diary, setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him, and statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. [(1-A) The statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation under Section 161 shall be inserted in the case diary. (1-B) The diary referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a volume and duly paginated.] [Inserted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (5 of 2009), Section 15.] (2) Any Criminal Court may send for the police diaries of a case under inquiry or trial in such Court, and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial. (3) Neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries, nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the Court; but, if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of section 161 or section 145, as the case may be, of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), shall apply.
4. Access to Case Diary
The Case Diary is primarily accessible to the Investigating Officer (IO), the officer in charge of the police station, and higher-ranking officers for supervision. The accused or their legal representative cannot access the case diary at the investigation stage, as it could interfere with the investigation.
The Case Diary is often referred to by the court in deciding on matters like bail or remand of the accused. It is not usually made public but may be reviewed by the court during the trial process to check the legitimacy of the investigation.
5. Supreme Court Judgments: Case Diary
5.1 Entries in Case Diary should be complete
In Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 3 SCC 344, the Supreme Court held-
“17. The other inference which disturbs us is that the entries in the police case diary (set forth in the annexure to the counter-affidavit on the record) do not appear to have been entered with the scrupulous completeness and efficiency which the law requires of such a document. The haphazard maintenance of a document of that status not only does no credit to those responsible for maintaining it but defeats the very purpose for which it is required to be maintained. We think it to be of the utmost importance that the entries in a police case diary should be made with promptness, in sufficient detail, mentioning all significant facts, in careful chronological order and with complete objectivity.”
5.2 No Access to Case Diary to Accused during Investigation
(a) Observing that the confidentiality is always kept in the matter of investigation and it is not desirable to make available the police diary to the accused on his demand, in Balakram v. State of Uttarakhand and others (2017) 7 SCC 668, the Supreme Court held as under:-
“15. The police diary is only a record of day-to-day investigation made by the investigating officer. Neither the accused nor his agent is entitled to call for such case diary and also are not entitled to see them during the course of inquiry or trial. The unfettered power conferred by the statute under Section 172(2) CrPC on the court to examine the entries of the police diary would not allow the accused to claim similar unfettered right to inspect the case diary.
……….
17. From the aforementioned, it is clear that the denial of right to the accused to inspect the case diary cannot be characterised as unreasonable or arbitrary. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of investigation and it is not desirable to make available the police diary to the accused on his demand.”
(b) In Sidharth and others v. State of Bihar (2005) 12 SCC 545, the Supreme Court held as under:-
“27. Lastly, we may point out that in the present case, we have noticed that the entire case diary maintained by the police was made available to the accused. Under Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code, every police officer making an investigation has to record his proceedings in a diary setting forth the time at which the information reached him, the time at which he began and closed his investigation, the place or places visited by him and a statement of the circumstances ascertained through his investigation. It is specifically provided in sub-clause (3) of Section 172 that neither the accused nor his agents shall be entitled to call for such diaries nor shall he or they be entitled to see them merely because they are referred to by the court, but if they are used by the police officer who made them to refresh his memory, or if the court uses them for the purpose of contradicting such police officer, the provisions of Section 161 CrPC or the provisions of Section 145 of the Evidence Act shall be complied with. The court is empowered to call for such diaries not to use it as evidence but to use it as aid to find out anything that happened during the investigation of the crime. These provisions have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to achieve certain specific objectives. The police officer who is conducting the investigation may come across a series of information which cannot be divulged to the accused. He is bound to record such facts in the case diary. But if the entire case diary is made available to the accused, it may cause serious prejudice to others and even affect the safety and security of those who may have given statements to the police. The confidentiality is always kept in the matter of criminal investigation and it is not desirable to make available the entire case diary to the accused. In the instant case, we have noticed that the entire case diary was given to the accused and the investigating officer was extensively cross-examined on many facts which were not very much relevant for the purpose of the case. The learned Sessions Judge should have been careful in seeing that the trial of the case was conducted in accordance with the provisions of CrPC.” [underlining added] The same position has been reiterated in Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar and others (2008) 1 SCC 632 [Paras 11 to 14], Malkiat Singh and others v. State of Punjab (1991) 4 SCC 341 [Para 11] and other judgments.
5.3 Failure of Investigating Officer to comply with Section 172 CrPC is a serious lapse
In Baleshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, (1997) 7 SCC 219, the Supreme Court ruled-
“5. Under Section 172 CrPC read with Rule 164 of Bihar Police Manual dealing with the investigation, an Investigating Officer investigating a crime is under obligation to record all the day-to-day proceedings and information in his case diary, and also record the time at which the information was received and the place visited by him, besides the preparation of site plan and other documents. The Investigating Officer is also required to send bloodstained clothes and earth seized from the place of occurrence for chemical examination. Failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to comply with the provisions of Section 172 CrPC is a serious lapse on his part resulting in diminishing the value and credibility of his investigation. In this case the Investigating Officer neither entered the time of recording of the statements of the witnesses in the diary nor did he send the bloodstained clothes and earth seized from the place of occurrence for examination by a serologist. The High Court also adversely commented upon the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in not complying with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore, take it that, in fact, there was serious lapse on the part of the Investigation Officer in not observing the mandate of Section 172 CrPC while investigating the case which has given rise to this appeal. But the question that arises for consideration is, has any prejudice been caused to the accused in the trial by non-observance of rules by the Investigating Officer? The evidence on record before the Sessions Court and the appellate court does not show that due to the lapses on the part of the Investigating Officer in not sending the bloodstained clothes and earth seized from the place of occurrence for chemical examination and further not noting down the time of recording the statement of the witnesses in the diary has resulted in any prejudice to the defence of the accused. In the present case, the place of occurrence and the identity of the deceased are not disputed. Further, the testimony of the eyewitnesses which is consistent and does not suffer from infirmity, was believed by both the courts below. Once the eyewitnesses are believed and the courts come to the conclusion that the testimony of the eyewitnesses is trustworthy, the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in not observing the provisions of Section 172 CrPC unless some prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused, will not affect the finding of guilt recorded by the Court. Neither before the High Court nor before this Court, it was pointed out in what manner the accused were prejudiced by non-observance of the provisions of Section 172 CrPC and the rules framed in this regard. We are, therefore, of opinion that judgments of the courts below do not suffer on account of omission on the part of the Investigating Officer in not sending the earth seized from the place of occurrence for chemical examination or in not entering the time of recording of the statements of witnesses in the diary.”
5.4 Criminal Court is Empowered to Summon Case Diary under Section 172 (2) CrPC
In Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Supreme Court held-
“203. The scheme of the CrPC under Chapter XII (Information to Police and Powers to Investigate) is clear — the police have the power to investigate freely and fairly; in the course of which, it is mandatory to maintain a diary where the day-to-day proceedings are to be recorded with specific mention of time of events, places visited, departure and reporting back, statements recorded, etc. While the criminal court is empowered to summon these diaries under Section 172(2) for the purpose of inquiry or trial (and not as evidence), Section 173(3) makes it clear that the accused cannot claim any right to peruse them, unless the police themselves, rely on it (to refresh their memory) or if the court uses it for contradicting the testimony of the police officers. [Mukund Lal v. Union of India, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 622 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 606; Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) 4 SCC 341 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 976]
204. In Manu Sharma [Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1385] , in the context of police diaries, this Court noted that “[t]he purpose and the object seems to be quite clear that there should be fairness in investigation, transparency and a record should be maintained to ensure a proper investigation”. This object is rendered entirely meaningless if the police fail to maintain the police diary accurately. Failure to meticulously note down the steps taken during investigation, and the resulting lack of transparency, undermines the accused's right to fair investigation; it is up to the trial court that must take an active role in scrutinising the record extensively, rather than accept the prosecution side willingly, so as to bare such hidden or concealed actions taken during the course of investigation. [ Role of the courts in a criminal trial has been discussed in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 999.]”
5.5 Entries in Case Diary are Not Evidence unless the Case comes under Section 172(3) CrPC
In State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma IAS and Another, 1991 AIR 1260, the Supreme Court of India held-
The only duty cast on the investigation is to maintain a diary of his investigation, which is known as "Case Diary" under s. 172 of the Code. The entries in the case diary are not evidence nor can they be used by the accused or the court unless the case comes under s. 172(3) of the Code. The court is entitled for perusal to enable it to find out if the investigation has been conducted on the right lines so that appropriate directions, if need be given and may also provide materials showing the necessity to summon witnesses not mentioned in the list supplied by the prosecution or to bring on record other relevant material which in the opinion of the court will help it to arrive at a proper decision in terms of s. 172(3) of the Code. The primary duty of the police, thus is to collect and sift the evidence of the commission of the offence to find whether the accused committed the offence or has reason to believe to have committed the offence and the evidence available is sufficient to prove the offence and to submit his report to the competent Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence.
6. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
6.1 Are Investigating Officers required to record their movements in case diary?
Yes, Investigating Officers (IOs) are required to record their movements and actions in the Case Diary. This is an important part of maintaining a chronological and systematic record of the investigation process in a criminal case. The Case Diary serves as a detailed log of the investigation’s progress, and it includes the actions taken by the investigating officer during the investigation.
6.2 What are the Key Aspects of Recording in the Case Diary?
Documentation of Visits: The IO must record any visits made to the crime scene, locations for collecting evidence, or visits to other relevant places during the investigation. The date, time, and details of these visits should be noted in the Case Diary.
Details of Interviews: The IO must record when they meet or interview witnesses, victims, or suspects. This includes the date, time, location of the interview, and the content of the discussions or statements made.
Arrests and Seizures: If the investigating officer makes any arrests, conducts searches, or seizes evidence during their investigation, these actions must be meticulously noted with relevant details such as the date, time, and location of these events.
Court Orders and Permissions: Any movements related to obtaining warrants, orders, or permissions from the court (for search, arrest, or detention) are also recorded, including the time and nature of the orders issued by the magistrate.
Travel for Evidence Collection: If the investigating officer travels to another city, state, or specific locations to collect evidence, check records, or interview persons, such travels must be documented.
Other Actions: Any other significant actions taken by the IO during the investigation, such as consulting experts, arranging forensic tests, or taking legal actions (e.g., remand of the accused), should be recorded in the Case Diary.
6.3 What is the Purpose of Recording Movements in Case Diary?
The recording of movements and actions by the Investigating Officer in the Case Diary is a crucial part of ensuring that the investigation is thorough, transparent, and legally valid. It ensures that there is a clear record of what the Investigating Officer has done during the investigation. It also helps in maintaining accountability, preventing any allegations of misconduct or negligence. It enables Senior officers to review the Case Diary to monitor the progress and direction of the investigation. It also helps the Court to verify the steps taken in the process of investigation during the trial or legal proceedings.