Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: human errors in Bhavanisinh Vaghubha Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 21 April, 2003Matching Fragments
It is a matter of record that the trial Court had disposed of the criminal case concerned on 26.07.1989, and thereafter, there could not be any further proceedings and even the petitioner - convict would not be present in the Court for facing the trial after disposal of the case. Therefore, there is human error in noting the date in question. There is no legal infirmity on record.
23. At the same time, it has also been contended that since the evidence of the I.O. was recorded after recording of further statement under Section 313 of the Code, the Court did not refer the evidence of I.O. to the petitioner while recording the said statement. It is true that there is a reference in the proceedings on 28.06.1989 that the further statement of the petitioner was recorded on that date. However, it seems that there may be an error on the part of the office of the learned Magistrate in showing about the recording of the further statement first and, thereafter, the recording of the evidence were shown in the proceeding of 28.06.1989. It seems that it has not been contended before the learned Magistrate or before the Sessions Court that the evidence of the I.O. was recorded after recording further statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code. In the memo of Revision also, it does not appear to be a ground of the petitioner that the evidence of the I.O. was recorded after recording of the further statement of the petitioner under Section 313 of the Code. At the same time, it cannot be disputed that the fact of evidence of I.O. at Ex.28 does not appear to have been put during the course of the further statement under Section 313 of the Code. It has to be accepted that whatever circumstances coming on record and appearing in the evidence against the petitioner are required to be put to him in order to enable him to render his explanation with respect to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. Therefore, it has to be accepted that the evidence of the said witness, I.O. does not appear to have been put to the petitioner.