Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 456 (PNJ)

Yudhisthar alias Mangu v. State of Haryana

2012-03-16

RAKESH KUMAR GARG

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: - The petitioners have been charge sheeted in a case arising out of FIR No.156 dated 3.9.2011 under Section 376(2)(g)/ 342/506 IPC registered at Police Station, City Charkhi Dadri and is facing trial. 2. By way of this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged order dated 18.2.2012 of the trial Court, whereby their request for summoning of record of complaint No.366/2 PD Dated 20.8.2011 filed with the police for confrontation of the same to the witness of the prosecution has been rejected. 3. The impugned order reads thus:- “An application has been filed for summoning the record for confrontation of the same with the witnesses of the prosecution sought to be examined. Heard. It was argued that as per prosecution case, complainant submitted application to the police and father of the complainant also made complaint No.366/2 PD dated 20.8.2011 against the applicant but the applications were not with the challan nor copies of the same were supplied to the applicant. It was argued that complaint No.366 dated 20.8.2011 might be summoned for the purpose of confrontation with the witnesses as after going through the complaint, the accused would come out with his defence and know about the earlier version of the complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the record sought to be summoned for the purpose of confrontation could be brought in defence by the accused. It was also argued by learned counsel for the accused that it would not be possible for the accused to get the document admitted or denied by the witnesses. After giving thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the rival submissions made at Bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that complaint No.366/2 dated 20.8.2011 has been admitted to be a document by this police in the first version of the prosecution and interest of justice would be served if this document is allowed to be brought in defence evidence and the trial is not allowed to be stalled. Learned counsel for the accused stated that accused wanted to file the revision petition against this order and thus the time might be granted to the defence for moving the revisionary jurisdiction. There is no force in the contention of the learned defence counsel as if the revision is allowed, the witnesses can be examined again. Learned counsel for the accused stated that accused wanted to file the revision petition against this order and thus the time might be granted to the defence for moving the revisionary jurisdiction. There is no force in the contention of the learned defence counsel as if the revision is allowed, the witnesses can be examined again. Let the witnesses in attendance be examined forthwith.” 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently argued that the record of the complaint as aforesaid sought to be summoned is necessary and if the aforesaid documents are not shown to the complainant in her cross-examination, prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that it is the duty of the investigating agency to produce all the relevant documents at the time of filing the challan and to supply copies of the same to the accused in the interest of justice, whereas the documents sought to be summoned, have not been attached with the challan, thus, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order as well as the averments made in this petition. 6. It is useful to refer to sub Section 5 of Section 173 CrPC which reads thus:- “173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation. xx xx xx xx xx (5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate along with the report- (a) All documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation; (b) The statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witness.” 7. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, only those documents are to be attached with the challan on which prosecution relies and the prosecution cannot be forced to produce any other evidence/documents. If the accused wants to rely upon some documents/evidence in his defence, he can do the same in accordance with law at the time of leading defence evidence. 8. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, only those documents are to be attached with the challan on which prosecution relies and the prosecution cannot be forced to produce any other evidence/documents. If the accused wants to rely upon some documents/evidence in his defence, he can do the same in accordance with law at the time of leading defence evidence. 8. Thus, the trial Court has rightly observed that the document sought to be summoned can be allowed to be brought in defence evidence and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. 9. Dismissed. --------------------