Jharkhand High Court
Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
(2025:JHHC:13548)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.1023 of 2025
------
Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod @ Vinod Kumar Singh, aged about 52 years, son of Late Dev Kumar @ Deo Kumar Singh Singh, Resident of Badiutola, P.O. and P.S. Kaira (Chapra Muffasel), District- Chapra, State- Bihar. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
------
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. for marking the document exhibit after playing the pen drive contained video footage in the Court, has been disposed of by the court concerned.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, who is an accused person of the said Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017, filed a petition under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the pen drive containing the video footage of the statement of the witness - Amar Singh be firstly permitted to be played in the court to enable the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to admit or deny the 1 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:13548) same and further to mark the Pen Drive without formal proof of the same and also a prayer was made that the voice of Amar Singh may be ordered to be taken by the experts of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi to get the same matched with the recorded statement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad permitted the petitioner to follow the provisions of Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and ordered that only upon complying with the provisions of said section, the Pen Drive can be marked exhibit and treated as electronic evidence to prove the case in his defence and by thus observing, disposed of the said petition filed by the petitioner under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 15 SCC 485 and submits that therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India taking into consideration the scheme of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. when the accused of that case intended to bring on record a compact disc in his defence with the aid of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., held that the compact disc is a document in terms of the Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and further held as under in paragraph-16:-
"16. We are not inclined to go into the truthfulness of the conversation sought to be proved by the defence but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we are of the view that the courts below have erred in law in not allowing the application of the defence to get played the compact disc relating to conversation between father of the victim and son and wife of the appellant regarding alleged property dispute. In our opinion, the courts below have erred in law in rejecting the application to play the compact disc in question to enable the Public Prosecutor to admit or deny, and to get it sent to the forensic science laboratory, by the defence. The appellant is in jail and there appears to be no intention on his part to unnecessarily linger the trial, particularly when the prosecution witnesses have been examined." (Emphasis supplied) 2 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:13548) and held that learned court below have erred in law in not allowing the application of the defence to get played the compact disc relating to conversation which was relevant to the facts of that case and submits that in this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad failed to properly appreciate the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (supra) and has erroneously disposed of the petition of the petitioner by depriving the petitioner to play the pen drive, the contents of which was relevant to the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the compliance of Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is a sine qua non for bringing any electronic evidence in record. It is then submitted that, the insistence on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad that the petitioner must comply with the said mandatory provision of law cannot be said to illegal. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as observed in para-11 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (supra); the object of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. is to accelerate pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties in recording the unnecessary evidence. Where genuineness of any document is admitted, or its formal proof is dispensed 3 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:13548) with, the same may be read in evidence. In other words, Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is an exception to the general rule of evidence; where the contents of the document may be proved, in case of primary evidence, by producing the document itself for inspection of the court and oral evidence is required to establish that the document produced is for the inspection of the court, is in fact the document which is claimed to be the document concerned by any of the parties to the case concerned; which is otherwise known as formal proof of a document. But Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is a means, by which a document can still be read in evidence without its formal proof, if the genuineness of the documents is not disputed by the parties, other than the party who produces such document. It is crystal clear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (supra) that in case a document including an electronic record is admitted by the party/parties; other than the one who produces it, it need not be formally proved and can be read in evidence but if genuineness of the same is denied then obviously, if the party still intends to adduce such document being the electronic record, as evidence, such party has to formally prove the same and once formal proof of a document is required, if it is an electronic record, then the special provision as to evidence relating to electronic record, as envisaged under Section 62 and the admissibility of such electronic record as envisaged under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is attracted.
7. So, these settled principle of law that if a party to a criminal case intends to adduce an electronic record with the aid of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. by dispensing with the formal proof of the same, then the court concerned should allow the party intending to adduce such evidence to get the same played to be 4 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:13548) seen by the other party or its counsel as the case may be; or in case of a State the Public Prosecutor or the Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, to watch it and to put forth its contention whether the party other than the party who produces such document, admits or denies the genuineness of such document and once the other party denies the genuineness of such document, obviously such document cannot be read in evidence with the aid of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. and the formal proof of the same will be required and the provisions of Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is to be complied.
8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, though a specific prayer has been made by the petitioner who is the accused person of case firstly to permit it to play in the court the pen drive which is an electronic record, which the petitioner intends to be read in evidence, by waiving its formal proof but the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad has committed a grave illegality by not allowing the playing of the same and disposed of the petition concerned.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017 is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017, is quashed and set aside.
11. The matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad or its successor court with a direction to the learned Additional 5 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025 (2025:JHHC:13548) Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad or its successor court to permit the petitioner to play the pen drive in the court; in order to enable the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, to either admit or deny the same and if after watching the contents of the pen drive; after it is played in court, the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, admits the same; the formal proof of the same can be dispensed with and the same be read in evidence but if after watching, the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, denies the genuineness of the same then the same has to be formally proved by complying with the provisions of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed with the aforesaid observation.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 06th of May, 2025 AFR/ Animesh 6 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025