Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The trial was initiated.

4. It is the case of prosecution that the video clip is recorded during the course of trap. According to the applicants, it was not supplied to the applicants and, therefore, the applicants have applied for supply of the same by questioning the genuineness of said electronic record i.e. video recording of the trap. The applicants have applied to get the Hash Value of the memory stick. Hash Value data present in the memory stick was extracted on 19.7.2024 by the Expert with the help of valid licensed EnCase tool and the same is accordingly submitted by the Expert to the trial Court. Thereafter the applicants have moved an application on 6.8.2024 before the trial Court for recalling of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination by apl1312.2024.odt contending that the Hash Value of video recording soon after it's recording was not brought on record and, therefore, it had become necessary and expedient for them to move an application for recalling of prosecution witnesses for cross-examination of P.W.1 Hemantkumar Kharabe and the complainant P.W.6 Investigating Officer Ramkrushna B. Das. The application of the applicants was rejected by the trial Court on 21.8.2024.

6. Learned Advocate for the applicants has also relied on the judgment in the case of P. Sanjeeva Rao V/s. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 7 SCC 56 in support of his argument that at any stage of trial, if it is necessary, the accused can recall the witness for cross-examination.

apl1312.2024.odt

7. Learned A.P.P. has submitted that the accused is referring to video clip which is in the memory stick of handycam and not any separately recorded video clip on any memory storage device like C.D. or V.C.D. etc. The video camera would be a record as defined under Section 65-B(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus the Hash Value calculated is of the original. Hence, the submission of applicants that Hash Value of original source of said video recording is not on record is not correct. If any electronic record as defined in Section 65-B(1) of the Indian Evidence Act was produced on V.C.D., C.D. or Pen Drive then tallying Hash Value of such electronic record with original would be required but in the present case, it is not required as only memory stick is before the Court. In such an eventuality, no purpose would be served by recalling P.W.1 and P.W.6 for further cross-examination.

9. Heard both sides and perused the record.

10. The trial is pending since last 12 years. The statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also recorded. Thereafter, the applicants have filed this application for recalling of P.W.1 and P.W.6. It appears from the record that the application to apl1312.2024.odt extract Hash Value was allowed. On 11.8.2023 the applicants have filed the application to provide the copy of audio and video and C.D. of recording generated during the trap proceeding which was allowed. Subsequently, the applicants have filed the application for referring the video recording to an Expert for checking its Hash Value. The Hash Value was extracted. Subsequently, the applicants have filed an application for recalling of the witnesses.

11. Learned A.P.P. pointed out that during cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.6 the suggestions were given by the learned Advocate for the applicants about genuineness of said recording. In para Nos.26, 29 and 31 of evidence of P.W.1 suggestions were given about genuineness of the video clip. Both the witnesses are already cross-examined on said issue. The opportunity was given to the applicants. It is the burden on the prosecution to prove the genuineness of said document. Hash Value is already brought on record. The power conferred under Section 311 is to be invoked by the Court for strong and valid reason and it should be exercised with great caution and circumspection. The witnesses are already cross-examined on said issue. Hence, there is no need to recall the witnesses at the fag end of the trial. Hence, the application is rejected. The trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.