Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 383 (BOM)

Dnyaneshwar Balu Patole v. State of Maharashtra

2011-03-23

J.H.BHATIA

body2011
Judgment : 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned counsel for the sister of the deceased Ms. Rekha Nishant Karande, who wanted to assist the prosecution in this matter. Perused the relevant record and the impugned order. 3 Petitioners before this Court are the original accused nos.5 and 6 in Sessions Case No.862 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149 of the I.P.C. pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. P.W.1 Ankush, who is said to be eye witness was in the witness box facing prosecution on behalf of the accused persons. When he was under the cross-examination, on behalf of the petitioners and accused no.3, a map of the scene of the offence prepared by advocate Mr. Amar Kale was produced on behalf of the defence and on the basis of that certain questions were put to the witness. Additional Public Prosecutor raised objections to certain questions, therefore, after hearing the advocates for the concerned parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 16.8.2008 rejected the question put to the witness. That order is challenged in the present petition. 4 It is true that petition is filed by the accused against the order, which may be termed as purely interlocutory during the proceedings of the trial. If he is convicted, he may prefer an appeal raising all the grounds including rejection of relevant questions. However at that stage either the appellate Court gave benefit of doubt on that count or the appellate Court may be required to remand the matter back which will only prolong the trial and final decision of the case . Taking into consideration the huge pendency of the appeals in the High Court, appeals come up for final hearing 5 to 10 years after the decision of the trial Court. If at such late stage, High Court is required to consider the objections to rejection of the questions put to the witness, it may be too late. Therefore, to avoid such a situation, trial Court could allow the questions and record the answer subject to objections. Whether the question is relevant or irrelevant, that could be considered at the time of final decision of the matter but in that process a lot of time can be saved and future complications can be avoided. Therefore, to avoid such a situation, trial Court could allow the questions and record the answer subject to objections. Whether the question is relevant or irrelevant, that could be considered at the time of final decision of the matter but in that process a lot of time can be saved and future complications can be avoided. In Bipin Shantilal Panchal v/s. State of Gujarat and Another 2001 All MR (Cri) 452, the Supreme Court observed thus, “12. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing Order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial Court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or revisional Court, when the same question is re-canvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material, in such cases the appellate Court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial Court. In such a situation the higher Court may have to send the case back to the trial Court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or remolded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings. 13. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this: Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. If the Court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the Court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed. 14 The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in trial Court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the Court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior Court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial Court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial Court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial Court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses. Coming to the facts of the present case, it appears that on behalf of the prosecution no map of the scene of the offence was produced alongwith the chargesheet. P.W.1 Ankush claimed to be eye witness. The learned counsel for the defence wanted to to put certain questions to him about the scene of the offence and presence of certain banana cart under the bridge .As there was no map produced by the prosecution, on behalf of the defence, a map privately prepared by an advocate was tendered and on that basis, questions were put to the witness and answers to the questions were taken down. The note taken below paragraph 27 of the evidence shows that question was put to the witness about place shown in the map filed by the defence. However, that question was objected to by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Question is not recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, this Court does not have benefit to know what was the exact question and whether the question was relevant or not. However, that question was objected to by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Question is not recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge and, therefore, this Court does not have benefit to know what was the exact question and whether the question was relevant or not. As soon as the objection was taken to the question, the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed thus, “The direction is given to the Learned counsel for accused to show the provision to the Court and satisfy the learned APP as to whether from the said map, such question can be asked or not.” It appears from the impugned order that on behalf of the prosecution reliance was placed on Section 83 of the Evidence Act to contend that there is presumption to the accuracy of the map prepared by the authorities of the Central Government while there is no such presumption available to the map prepared by the private person. It appears that on the basis of this, attempt was made to show that map prepared by the private person can not be admissible. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order noted that witness had stated that he did not understand map and finally he noted that the map produced on record is not proved according to the provisions of law ; therefore, the question was rejected. 5 It appears that there was misunderstanding in the mind of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in respect of the provisions of Section 83 of Evidence Act. Section 83 reads thus, “S.83 The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate.” From the language of section 83, it is clear that Court shall presume that the maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were so made and are accurate but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate. It shows that when plans of town or area or certain roads, forests, rivers, nalas, etc. are prepared for public record and general information there is presumption of its accuracy. It shows that when plans of town or area or certain roads, forests, rivers, nalas, etc. are prepared for public record and general information there is presumption of its accuracy. However, when a map is prepared for particular cause or purpose, there is no presumption of accuracy and that map has to be proved by leading necessary evidence. If a map is prepared by the investigating agency to prove scene of offence ,that map is prepared for the particular purpose, i.e., to establish scene of offence and certain facts, which the prosecution wants to establish, there can not be any presumption of accuracy to such map. Such map will have to be proved like any other fact by leading necessary evidence. The learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for the victim could not point out any provision of law in the Evidence Act which the prohibits the accused from preparing private plan and tendering the same before the Court during the trial. In the present case, as the investigating agency had failed to produce map of the scene of offence, the accused felt it necessary and got a map prepared and tendered before the Court and tried to use the same for the purpose of cross-examination of the eye witness. If the map would be admitted to be correct by the prosecution witness, it could be admitted in the evidence and could be exhibited. If the prosecution does not admit the same to be correct or shows ignorance about the same or denies correctness of the same, it could be given some article number for the purpose of reference. Once, the document is put to the witness and the question is put on the basis of same, it does not mean that document is proved or admitted in the evidence. If such map prepared and tendered by the defence is not admitted to be correct or is denied to be correct, it will be for the accused to lead necessary evidence to prove the same, if he so desires; The stage for giving evidence to prove that map will be only when the accused will be called upon to give defence evidence. Till that stage such document should remain on record as article for the purpose of reference. Till that stage such document should remain on record as article for the purpose of reference. It would have been proper for the trial Court to record questions as well as answers alongwith the objections taken by the prosecution and whether the question is helpful in deciding the case or not could be looked into at the later stage. At the time when question is put to the witness the trial Court has only to consider whether the question is relevant or not. Questions based on private map prepared by the defence could not be rejected as irrelevant merely because they were based on the map prepared by the accused privately and tendered during the prosecution evidence. Question could not be rejected merely because till that time the map was not proved, because the stage of proving the same may come at much later stage. 6 The learned APP makes a statement that after this controversy was raised, the prosecution has also submitted a map of the scene of the offence and now it is available. If it is so prepared and produced, prosecution will have to prove the same because there is no presumption of its accuracy under Section 83 of the Evidence Act. Naturally if the prosecution wants to rely on that document, the accused will have right to cross-examine the witness on that basis but if the accused does not admit correctness of the same and if the accused contends that situation was different, he may also use map prepared by him and tendered during the evidence. Whether that map is proved or not will depend on whether the prosecution witness admits correctness of the same or not and if not admitted, the accused may give the evidence, when he is called on to enter into defence. 7 In view of the above, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall follow the procedure stated above in respect of questions, which may be put by the accused and about which any objection may be taken. Rule made absolute accordingly.