Himachal Pradesh High Court
State Of H.P vs Mohinder Singh on 2 May, 2016
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Criminal Revision No. 256 of 2015.
.
Decided on: 2nd May, 2016.
State of H.P. .....Petitioner.
Versus
Mohinder Singh .....Respondent.
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
rt
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Attri, Dy. A.G.
For the Respondent : Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (Oral)
The State of Himachal Pradesh stands aggrieved by the order rendered on 22.05.2015 by the learned Special Judge, Solan, whereby it dismissed the application preferred before it by the revisionist herein under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application aforesaid instituted before the learned Special Judge, Solan, embodied manifestation of a transcript of a recorded conversation held inter se the accused and the complainant standing prepared from one spare CD, the latter whereof 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP...2...
stood prepared from its original. For proof of the transcript .
of the conversation comprised in Ex.PW17/L, which stood prepared from a spare CD, the adduction into evidence of the spare CD of the original CD, wherefrom the transcript of of the conversation as contained therein stood prepared, was imperative. The learned Special Judge, Solan had rejected the application on the ground of its belated institution rt besides on the ground of PW43 during the course of the recording of his deposition omitting to bespeak therein of one spare CD standing supplied to him by Inspector Mukesh Kumar for enabling him to prepare a transcript of the conversation contained therein. However, the aforesaid reason per se appears to be flimsy as on a reading of the deposition of PW-43, it is apparent of his communicating therein of his obtaining a spare CD from its original, wherefrom he prepared a transcript of the conversation embodied therein. Necessarily hence when the transcript of the conversation embodied in a spare CD stood prepared therefrom, the adduction of the latter into evidence in proof of the transcript prepared therefrom when hence was both just and essential renders its adduction standing ousted for ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP ...3...
per se flimsy reasons to not warrant its standing .
countenanced by this Court. The further reason which prevailed upon the learned Special Judge, Solan, to dismiss the application preferred before it by the State of Himachal of Pradesh for the purpose aforesaid was of omission on the part of the applicant/petitioner herein to communicate therein the name of Inspector Mukesh Kumar, who had rt supplied to PW 43, the spare CD wherefrom a transcript of the conversation contained therein stood prepared.
However, even if, the State of H.P. had omitted to manifest the aforesaid factum in its application, nonetheless, with PW-43 in his deposition divulging therein of his standing handedover by Inspector Mukesh Kumar a spare CD for preparing therefrom a transcript of the conversation contained therein was sufficient to prevail upon the learned Special Judge to, especially when proof of the transcript of the recorded conversation prepared from the spare CD was possible only on the spare CD standing permitted to be adduced into evidence by Inspector Mukesh Kumar. Even the factum of the belated institution of the application was not a sufficient ground for the learned Special Judge to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP ...4...
dismiss the application when proof of the transcript of the .
conversation embodied in a spare CD, original whereof stands already adduced into evidence, would occur on permission to adduce the spare CD by examination of of Inspector Mukesh Kumar standing accorded by it, more so given the essentiality qua its standing adduced into evidence for clinching the guilt of the accused obviously rt subsumed the effect of delay, if any, in the institution of the application at hand before the Special Judge, Solan.
2. Even though, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused has contended with force of the impugned order rendered on the application at hand being interlocutory hence it being unavailable for its standing assailed by the State of H.P. by its instituting a criminal revision before this Court for its being quashed and set aside. However, the apposite application instituted by the State of H.P. is in a corruption case instituted by the CID department of the police against the accused. Since proof of the transcript of the recorded conversion which occurred inter se the complainant and the accused is both imperative besides essential by adduction into evidence of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP ...5...
the spare CD wherefrom it stand prepared , hence, given .
the statutory imperativeness of proof of the transcript of conversation prepared from a spare CD, of the original CD,by adduction into evidence of the relevant spare CD the of latter whereof stood prepared from its original besides its constituting a statutory mode of proof of the transcript of the conversation prepared therefrom by the expert rt concerned, it appears that the tenable concert of the petitioner herein to in accordance with law prove the transcript of conversation as prepared by the expert concerned from the spare CD of the original rather stood untenably ousted by the learned Special Judge, Solan. The proof of the aforesaid transcript in the legally envisaged manner as concerted by the State of H.P. would have unearthed the incriminatory role of the accused/respondent herein. Moreover, it constituted the best scientific evidence to clinch the guilt of the accused. Necessarily hence when the guilt of the accused may have acquired sustenance by the endeavours of the prosecution even if the apposite endeavours were made by it at a belated stage, the learned Special Judge, Solan, unwarrantedly merely for belated ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP ...6...
institution before it of the application at hand by the .
revisionist has frustrated the aforesaid concerts made before it by the revisionist herein with the manifest sequel of the revisionist standing precluded to prove the factum of devolving besides impinging upon the guilt of the accused.
Consequently, the order impugned before this Court cannot at all be held to be an interlocutory order more so when it rt stands rendered in an corruption case instituted against the respondent/accused by the State of H.P. proof whereof stands anvilled upon the tenable concerts made by the State of H.P. besides, predominantly, when the ouster of the tenable concerts of the State of H.P. to clinchingly sustain the guilt of the accused has thrown overboard its entire case against the accused/respondent herein which in its entirety rests upon best scientific evidence.
3. Be that as it may, the learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted before this Court that the purported voice of the accused/respondent as occurrs in the spare CD wherefrom a transcript stands prepared by the expert concerned, stands not conclusively opined by the FSL concerned to be the voice of the respondent/accused. In ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP ...7...
face thereof, the transcript of the conversation held inter se .
the accused and the complainant transcript whereof stood prepared by the expert concerned from a spare CD cannot hence constitute formidable evidence in possession of the of State of H.P. to hence clinch the guilt of the accused/respondent.
4. Consequently, when the revisionist through the rt instant application in hand seeks to prove the incriminatory role of the accused/respondent herein on the anvil of an inconclusive opinion rendered by the FSL concerned qua the spare CD containing the voice of the respondent/accused wherefrom its transcript stood prepared by the expert concerned obviously as a corollary this Court is constrained to conclude of adduction into evidence of the spare CD not being essential, its not constituting clinching evidence for proving the guilt of the accused. In after math its adduction into evidence is neither just nor essential, it being neither relevant nor admissible evidence. Contrarily, it is to be held that the order impugned before this Court does not for only the immediately preceding observations merit any interference.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP...8...
Accordingly, it is affirmed and maintained and the instant .
petition is dismissed. All other pending applications also stand disposed of.
2nd May, 2016 (Sureshwar Thakur)
of
(jai) Judge
rt
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:15:06 :::HCHP