Karnataka High Court
Siranganahalli Rangappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2012
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.560 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
Siranganahalli Rangappa,
Son of Late Basappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Occupation : Coolie,
Residing at Hosabisileri Village,
Davanagere Taluk. ...PETITIONER
(By Shri. R.B.Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
By Hadadi Police. ...RESPONDENT
(By Shri. P.Karunakara, High Court Government Pleader)
*****
This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and
401 Criminal Procedure Code, by the Advocate for the petitioner
praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order
2
dated 14.2.2012 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Davanagere in S.C.No.24/2009 in the interest of justice.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for Admission, this
day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the prosecution in a sessions case, whereby the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity), had filed an application under Section 91 read with Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC' for brevity), seeking permission to display a video cassette (or may be a compact disc which expressions are interchangeably used in the order) recording the sequence of the accused showing the place of occurrence and the dead body to the Police and also to recall two witnesses. 3
2. The prosecution had contended that the said material, though available at the time when the evidence was adduced before the court below, could not be readily produced, since it was misplaced and it is only after a fervent search that the same has been recovered and therefore, the application.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has raised a serious objection and pointed out that after the conclusion of the investigation and after the filing of a charge-sheet before the court, along with material objects and other records, there was sufficient time granted to the complainant to produce all such records before the court. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution to have so produced the same before the court at the appropriate time and after the witnesses have been examined and since there was no mention of any such material at the appropriate time and the statement of the accused having been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., at this stage, if the present application is considered and allowed, it would result in a miscarriage 4 of justice and therefore it was contended that the application was not maintainable. Further, the Videographer, who had filmed the alleged sequence was also not cited as a witness in the witness list, which raises a serious suspicion about the genuineness of the material that is sought to be produced and is apparently doctored in order to bring home the charges against the accused and therefore, had sought rejection of the application. The court below has held that though it was certainly the duty of the Investigation Officer to place all the relevant records at the appropriate time since the prosecution had candidly admitted that it had failed to do so, owing to pressure of work and inadvertence, the court below has accepted such an excuse and has held that there is no bar in law to permit such production, since it is the bounden duty of the court to consider whether any such material is essential to arrive at a proper decision of the case and therefore, has concluded that the application may be allowed. It is in this background that the present petition is filed. 5
4. As stated by the lower court, it was certainly not prohibited to produce material evidence, which may be essential to arrive at a proper decision. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be shut out from producing any such material. If it is the contention of the petitioner that the material sought to be produced is concocted, it is always open to test the same in cross-examination of the concerned witnesses and to establish the same before the court below.
Accordingly, the present petition does not merit consideration and is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv