The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a writ petition, praying to quash the order dated 14.09.2022, passed by learned Special Judge vide which it had allowed the marking of the exhibit on the documents. The Court observed that the mere marking of the exhibit on the documents will not dispense with their proof and if the documents are legally inadmissible, the same will not be read by the learned Special Judge.
Brief Facts:
An FIR was registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(I)(XI) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the complaint of the wife of the present petitioner. She died on 17.11.2021. The trial is pending before learned Special Judge, Una. The accused stated while recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 14.9.2022 that he wanted to lead evidence in defence. The petitioner came to know of the exhibiting of the documents from the letter written by the District Attorney to the Director, Prosecution. It is contended that the documents are copies of the original documents and could not have been taken on record without prior permission of the Court. No opportunity was given to the other side to rebut the documents or cross-examine the witness.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the documents were obtained under the Right to Information Act and they are not admissible in evidence. They could not have been exhibited without proper proof. Further, it was submitted that the learned Special Judge erred in permitting the accused to lead evidence without any application under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Special Judge be set aside.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the mere production of the documents or even marking the exhibit on them does not amount to the proof of a document as is understood in law. It is for the learned Special Judge to see whether the documents were properly proved or not. The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and should not be exercised for mere exhibition of a document. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
The Court noted that there is some force in the submission of Mr. Jitender Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the State that the petition is premature as the learned Special Judge has to see the admissibility of the documents.
The Court observed that the mere marking of the exhibit on the documents will not dispense with their proof and if the documents are legally inadmissible, the same will not be read by the learned Special Judge. Since the question of legal admissibility is yet to be decided by the learned Special Judge, it is not necessary to decide whether the documents obtained under the Right to Information Act can be tendered in evidence or not because any finding recorded by this Court will prejudice the trial pending before the learned Trial Court.
Further, the Court said that the necessity to take permission under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. arises when the accused intends to appear as his witness. Otherwise, he is free to lead the evidence as he has the right to defend himself.
The decision of the Court:
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, dismissing the petition, held that there is no justification for interfering with the mere exhibition of the documents.
Case Title: Sanjeev Kumar v State of H.P.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Rakesh Kainthla
Case no.: Cr. MMO No.1077 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Sharma
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
