Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 66 (MAD)

Ram @ Ramprasad v. State

2014-01-07

S.VAIDYANATHAN

body2014
ORDER 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P. No. 6052/2013 in P.R.C. No. 17 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Trichirapalli, dated 04.10.2013. 2. The petitioner in this petition is the 5th accused in Crime No. 1863 of 2013 for an offence under Section 323 IPC. There are other accused involved in other offence punishable under Section 302 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, but any how that is not an issue in this petition. 3. At the time of trial, the witnesses were examined and the material documents have been marked. One of the material document is a videograph and the other one is compact disc (C.D). The petitioner/accused in this petition filed a petition asking the committal Court to furnish a copy of the C.D and not the original C.D. The respondent/State filed a counter objecting to that stating that it is not a document as per Section 29 IPC and Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and this Compact Disc(C.D) need not be given to the petitioner. 4. The petitioner contended that in view of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which was inserted by Act 21 of 2000 with effect from 17.10.2000, the compact disc is also a material document and the electronic document has got to be furnished for the purpose of cross-examining the witnesses. If such document is not given, he would be put to great hardship and no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witness. 5. For the sake of convenience, Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 29 IPC are extracted below: “Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Document- “Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. “Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code: Document- The word “document” denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter. “Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code: Document- The word “document” denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter. Explanation 1.- It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of justice or not. Explanation 2.- Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.” 6. The contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, and Section 29 IPC does not deal with an electronic document, cannot be accepted, as it would amount to giving narrow interpretation to the provision of the Indian Evidence Act and IPC and more particularly, after the introduction of Section 65(B). Apart from that, on the very same date i.e. on 17.10.2000, Section 29(A) was introduced in IPC introducing the definition of electronic record, which reads as follows: “Section 29 (A) . Electronic record- The words ‘electronic record’ shall have the meaning assigned to them in clause(t) of sub-section(1) of Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000). Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 reads as follows: (t) “electronic record” means data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.” 7. This Court is not accepting the contention of the respondent. In terms of Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 29(A) of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is entitled for a copy of the compact disc and the committal Court namely the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Trichy is directed to proceed with the matter after furnishing a copy of the Compact Disc(C.D) to the petitioner. If such document is not given, it would amount to denial of opportunity to the accused in the trial. 8. If such document is not given, it would amount to denial of opportunity to the accused in the trial. 8. In the result, the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Trichy, in Crl.M.P. No. 6052 of 2013 in PRC No. 17 of 2013 dated 04.10.2013, is set aside and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed with a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Trichy, to furnish a copy of the compact disc to the petitioner/accused to enable him to cross-examine the witnesses. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. Petition allowed.