Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjana Rani @ Sangeeta vs State Of Punjab And Another on 8 May, 2013
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl. Revision No. 755 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Revision No. 755 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 08.05.2013
Sanjana Rani @ Sangeeta
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Mr. Prem Kumar Hans, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Klar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No.1.
Mr. H.R. Nohria, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
Tersely, the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, initially in the wake of complaint of petitioner-complainant Sanjana Rani @ Sangeeta (for brevity 'the complainant), a criminal case was registered against Pawan Bansal accused (private respondent No.2), vide FIR No. 218 dated 12.08.2012 (Annexure P-1), for the commission of offence of rape, by the police of Police Station City Barnala. Crl. Revision No. 755 of 2013 (O&M) -2-
2. During the pendency of the case, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-2), for additional evidence filed by the complainant was dismissed by the trial Court, vide impugned order 19.02.2013.
3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-complainant has preferred the instant revision petition, to challenge the impugned order, invoking the provisions of Section 401 IPC.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context.
5. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the additional evidence now sought to be produced by the complainant is essential for just decision of the case, so, the trial Court has committed a legal mistake, to dismiss her application (Annexure P-2), is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
6. As is evident from the record that, Pawan Bansal-accused is facing the trial of rape case, punishable under Section 376 IPC and he is in custody. As soon as, the case was fixed for defence evidence, she moved an application (Annexure P-2), for recalling the ASI Balwinder Singh with some reports dated 28.09.2012 and 03.10.2012, P.R. Sharma, Advocate Defence counsel, Nitesh Midda son of Ramsen Kumar, Nodal Officer of Idea Sim and Munish Kumar Proprietor of Satyam Cyber Cafe.
7. Sequelly, the accused refuted her prayer and filed the reply (Annexure P-3).
Crl. Revision No. 755 of 2013 (O&M) -3-
8. Taking into consideration the entire matter, the trial Court dismissed her (complainant's) application (Annexure P-2), by virtue of impugned order dated 19.02.2013, which, in substance, is as under: -
"5. Prosecutrix has also not specified the reason of allowing her to re-appear into the witness box. She wants to produce the identity card and certificate issued by the accused in her favour regarding her employment. Such employment has already been admitted by the accused while making statement u/s 313 Code. She has not specified as to how her bank passbook and caste certificate are relevant and having bearing upon the decision of the case. Hence her such vague request also cannot be allowed.
6. Now, adverting to summoning Sh. P.R. Sharma, Advocate, who is defence counsel, in additional evidence for confronting him with his recording of having tried to purchase the prosecutrix, her counsel and public prosecutrix on 19.12.2012, such allegations against him are independent and have no bearing upon the case of the prosecution and if any such attempt was made by the defence counsel to win over the prosecutrix, her counsel and public prosecutor on 19.12.2012, there was no reason for the prosecutrix to remain mum when she stepped into the witness box on 17.1.2013 and thereafter. There is nothing in the application that such recording have come into the hands of the prosecutrix after her examination in court. Even otherwise such allegations needs a separate probe and prosecutrix can approach the competent authorities to redress her grievance of having been pressurized before her examination in court by defence counsel and also of his having tried to prevail upon the counsel for the prosecutrix and public prosecutor for monetary consideration. No body can be forced by the court to make incriminating statement against himself. Hence such request is also disallowed.
7. So far as request of the prosecutrix to summon Nitesh Midda to prove the sending of obscene messages by the accused from his cell phone No.98141-86911 and from some other unknown cell phones is concerned, no charge of such of publishing such obscene messages of the prosecutrix by the accused has been framed. Only a charge of rape is framed and to decide such charge, proof of sending obscene messages by the accused to one Nitesh Midda are not relevant. Prosecutrix has also not specified as to what is requirement of proving the issuance of cell phone no.98141-86911 in the name of accused by the idea Telecommunication company. Hence such Nodal Officer cannot be summoned without specifying the reason to prove such fact. Same is the position of Munish Kumar, proprietor of Satyam Cyber Cafe. Prosecutrix has not been able to satisfy this court as to what is the requirement of summoning such witness and how the receipt issued to her about colour printing and E-mail ID and further business proof of Pawan Bansal is going to corroborate her version of commission of rape by the accused. So keeping in view all these circumstances, I do not deem it expedient in the interest of justice to recall or summon any of the aforesaid witnesses because their evidence is not relevant at all. Hence this application is dismissed."
9. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has appreciated the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this respect. The complainant appears to have filed the indicated application in order to delay the disposal of the main case as the accused is in custody. Learned counsel did not point out any material/reasons, much less cogent, even to suggest remotely that how & in what manner the recalling of additional evidence is relevant in a rape case. Therefore, no interference is warranted in the Crl. Revision No. 755 of 2013 (O&M) -4- impugned order. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
10. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such.
May 08, 2013 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) naresh.k Judge