Madhya Pradesh High Court
Amresh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25473
1 MCRC-3703-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 24 th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 3703 of 2026
AMRESH SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Arunodaya Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Parma Nand Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Manoj Kushwaha - P.L. for the respondent/State .
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 challenging the order dated 05/12/2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Rewa in Sessions Case No. 67/2022, whereby the application dated 04/08/2025 preferred by the maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix has been partly allowed and the pen drive containing the audio recording has been taken on record, along with a direction for obtaining voice samples of the accused and the prosecutrix.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 354(A), 509, 506, 451 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 11,12 of POCSO Act. during trial the maternal grand father of prosecutrix filed an application stating that the audio of the conversation was made viral during the incidence and the said audio was available in Youtube platform and the same has been saved in a pen drive which needs to be taken on record and also prayed for calling the records of the mobile numbers as mentioned in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 07-04-2026 13:39:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25473 2 MCRC-3703-2026 application. The Learned Trial Court, passed the impugned order partially allowing the application of the complainant taking the pendrive on record and also directing for voice sampling of the petitioner and the prosecutrix to match the voice contained in the said pen drive allegedly containing the audio of the said conversation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed at the fag end of trial, which is impermissible in law. The Trial Court has illegally allowed collection of new evidence during trial, which is not permissible after framing of charges. He further argued that the application for bringing additional documents can only be filed by the prosecution and not by a private person, i.e., the maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix. It is submitted that further investigation cannot continue once trial has commenced. He argued that the pen drive earlier seized was not working, which casts serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged audio recording. The audio is allegedly taken from YouTube and may be fabricated or AI-generated, and hence cannot be relied upon as admissible evidence. In support of his argument, he relied upon Virubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State of Gujarat, AIR 2019 Supreme Court 5233, Athul Rao vs State of Karnataka, AIR 2017 Supreme Court 4021, Sunil Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C.No.46527/2023, order dated 21.09.2024, Poonam Madha Parmar vs The State of Gujarat, 2022 Livelaw (Guj) 305 and Bhagyashree Prasant Wasankar vs The State of Maharashtra, 2021 Supreme Bom 280.
4. Learned counsel for the State as well respondent No. 2 opposed the petition and supported the impugned order, submitting that the Trial Court has rightly exercised its powers to ensure a fair and complete trial. The evidence sought to be brought on record is relevant for adjudication of the case. The Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 07-04-2026 13:39:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25473 3 MCRC-3703-2026 direction for voice sampling is necessary to ascertain the truth and authenticity of the audio recording.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.
6. The primary contention of the petitioner is that no additional evidence can be taken on record after framing of charges or at an advanced stage of trial. This contention is misconceived and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is well established that the Trial Court possesses wide powers under criminal law to ensure that justice is done. The Court is not merely a passive adjudicator but has a duty to discover the truth. Even after commencement of trial, the Court is empowered to take additional evidence on record, summon or recall witnesses and permit production of relevant material if the same is necessary for a just decision of the case.
7. The argument that only the prosecution can file such an application also does not hold good. A victim or complainant is not a stranger to the proceedings and has a legitimate right to assist the Court. It is permissible for the victim or a person acting in their interest to bring relevant material to the notice of the Court, and request the Court to take such material on record subject to judicial scrutiny. The Court, upon being satisfied about the relevance of such material, may exercise its discretion to accept the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the victim has a right to be heard at every stage of the criminal process from investigation to the conclusion of trial. The reliance placed by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. Further, the objection regarding non-functioning of earlier pen drive, alleged fabrication or AI-generated audio and source being YouTube are all matters which pertain to evidentiary value, not admissibility at this stage. Such objections can be tested during trial. At this stage, the Court is only concerned Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 07-04-2026 13:39:00 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:25473 4 MCRC-3703-2026 with relevance, not final proof. The direction issued by the Trial Court for obtaining voice samples of the accused and the prosecutrix is also legally sustainable. Such a direction aids in determining the authenticity of the audio recording does not amount to illegal collection of evidence. It is a settled principle that the object of a criminal trial is the discovery of truth, and not its suppression on technical grounds. Procedural law is a handmaid of justice does not meant to defeat substantive justice. Therefore, relevant evidence ought not to be shut out merely on technical objections.
9. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has acted within its jurisdiction. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the order has been passed to ensure a fair and complete adjudication.
10. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE Jasleen Signature Not Verified Signed by: JASLEEN SINGH SALUJA Signing time: 07-04-2026 13:39:00