Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajhar Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 4 May, 2016
MCRC.4823/2015
1
(Ajhar Khan & Ors. vs. State of M.P.)
04.05.2016
Shri V.K. Saxena, Senior Advocate with Shri R.K. Joshi,
learned counsel for the petitioners/accused.
Shri Rajendra Singh Yadav, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Shri Yogendra Singh Tomar, learned counsel for the complainant.
With the consent of both the parties, this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is being heard finally at the motion stage.
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the court of 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in S.T. No. 77/2014 dismissing an application filed by them under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for getting a transcript of the CD recorded by Anil Singh, a senior news reporter of S. News Channel produced before the court for cross-examination of the witness Mahendra Singh Grewal PW-2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the witness Mahendra Singh Grewal PW-2 who was present at the spot and is the injured witness of this case has deposed in his statement against the petitioners/accused that they had committed the murder of Parvej and assaulted him also but the statement given by Mahendra Singh Grewal PW-2 before the court is totally false and concocted because after happening of the alleged incident on 26.09.2013 his interview was recorded by Anil Singh S. News Channel wherein he stated to the news reporter that he could not identify the assailant who fired shot at the deceased Parvej and also at him. The transcript of the CD of interview was produced before the trial court and the same is MCRC.4823/2015 2 annexed to page 12. The said contents reveal that the witness PW-2 could not identify the assailants. Counsel further contends that the statement of Mahendra Singh Grewal was recorded before the trial court on 13.03.2014. The said statement was not completed and the case was adjourned for further cross- examination. In paras 13, 23 and 24 of the statement it has come on record that the interview of the witness was recorded by news channel at the hospital but the witness has denied in his statement that he told the news channel that he could not identify the assailant at the time of happening of the incident. To contradict the said statement, the petitioners moved an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. on 19.05.2014 with a prayer that the transcript of the CD recorded by news channel be got produced from the reporter of the news channel. The said application was kept pending by the trial court and the statement of PW-2 was completed on the same date. After that the said application was decided by the trial court on 23.04.2015 dismissing the same on the ground that the statement of PW-2 has already been completed. The reasons assigned by learned trial court in dismissing the application are not just and proper. Counsel further contends that during pendency of the trial additional charge under Section 307 of IPC has been framed against the petitioner/accused No.2 Nasir Khan, owing to which, the learned trial court has ordered to recall the PW-2 again for recording his statement in connection with the amended charge and further date is fixed on 10.05.2016. In the said circumstances, the transcript of the original CD recorded by the news channel is necessary to be produced before the trial court for cross-examination of the witness PW-2, therefore, the trial court be directed to get a transcript of the original CD produced from the S. News MCRC.4823/2015 3 Channel.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a transcript of the original CD recorded by the news channel has already been produced before the trial court by the petitioners/accused themselves, hence the relief sought by them in the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. has been completed by themselves. In the said circumstances, this petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed as it has been automatically rendered infructuous.
Heard the arguments of both the parties.
In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has admitted that the CD recorded by news channel has been produced by the petitioners before the trial court on 19.05.2014 along with the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. When the CD recorded by the news channel has already been produced before the trial court by the petitioners themselves, there is no need to pass any order for getting a transcript of the original CD produced before the trial court. In the said circumstances the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners is hereby dismissed. However, it is ordered that the petitioners have a right to cross-examine the witness PW-2 on the basis of the original CD when the PW-2 comes before the court for getting the remaining statement recorded by the court in connection with the amended charge vide order dated 02.05.2016.
With the aforesaid directions, this petition is hereby disposed of.
(M.K. Mudgal)
(alok) Judge