Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: missing documents in State vs . Kartar Singh Narang & Ors. on 5 March, 2020Matching Fragments
we are submitting photographs of original documents, attested copy of re port no. CFSL85/D2492/5401 dt. 12/7/85 alongwith forwarding letter (containing 4 +1 pages) as well as copy of the forwarding letter dated 31.5.85 signed by ACP/South, Anti Auto Theft Squad, South Delhi through which our office had received all these documents. We are only providing photographs of the portions of the original documents.
56. It is pertinent to mention here that evidence was being recorded in the main case even when proceedings were being conducted in reconstruction file. Applications were moved by the prosecution from time to time seeking permission to produce secondary evidence regarding cer tain documents. Documents which were produced by the prosecution alongwith application/request for permission to lead secondary evidence were taken on record subject to objections raised by learned defence coun sels with regard to admissibility of these documents. Learned Predecessor vide order dated 09.04.2007 held that objection with regard to admissibility of secondary evidence will be decided by the Court at the time of final ar guments. Even after proceedings in reconstruction file were closed by learned Predecessor vide order dated 09.11.2008, efforts were made by prosecution to bring on record copies of certain documents which were stated to have been missing. As was rightly submitted by Mr. Rakesh Ma hajan, learned defence counsel, no request was made by prosecution at the time of closing of reconstruction file that some more documents may be traced and more time may be given to prosecution to bring on record of copies of missing documents or missing documents themselves for recon St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
struction of file. Therefore, documents or copies of documents which were produced by prosecution during trial cannot be taken on record as it could not have been an indefinite process.
57. It may also be mentioned here that FIR No. 309/06, u/s. 381/409/120B IPC was got registered by learned Predecessor at PS Tilak Marg regarding missing of documents. Matter was investigated by police officials of PS Tilak Nagar. Charge sheet was filed and case is pending in the concerned Court. Departmental inquiry was also initiated against court officials responsible for missing of court documents.
58. While going through the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly, police officials, it was observed that photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies of various documents viz. disclosure statements of accused, arrest memo, seizure memo, personal search memo, statements u/s. 164 Cr.PC, etc. were produced before the Court with request from prosecution that same may be read as secondary evidence as original of these documents are missing. As and when these photocopies were sought to be produced before the Court, learned defence counsels raised objection regarding their admissibility and it was held that these objections will be decided at the time of final arguments. Therefore, it is a relevant stage to decide the question as to whether above mentioned photocopies/carbon copies/cyclostyle copies produced by prosecution with request/application for leading secondary evidence can be allowed or not and as to whether ob jection raised by learned defence counsels regarding admissibility of these St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
St. Vs. Kartar Singh Narang & Ors.
282. As discussed in earlier part of this judgment, vital documents viz. disclosure statements, seizure memos, statements under Section 164 Cr.PC, pamphlets/letters, etc. are not on record. It cannot even be said that these documents went missing as it was not established by prosecution that these documents did exist or were filed with the charge sheet. Even in the FIR No. 309/06, u/s. 381/409/120B IPC, PS Tilak Marg lodged by learned Predecessor, nature/particulars of documents missing are not mentioned. As a result, various police officials associated with investigation of these cases while deposing in the Court attempted to reproduce disclosure state ments of accused and statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. Such efforts on the part of police officials (witnesses) failed to yield any tangible result sofar as the case of prosecution is concerned, since no recovery was effected pursuant to disclosure statements of most of accused persons. Be sides, whenever recoveries were effected from or at the instance of accused or during search of houses, no effort was made by Investigating Officers to associate public witnesses to recovery/search proceedings rendering the same doubtful.