Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Pathak vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 1 October, 2024
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68094
Court No. - 13
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8880 of 2024
Applicant :- Ramesh Pathak
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Babban Prasad Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard Sri Babban Prasad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Vinay Kumar Sahi, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant has prayed for the following main reliefs:-
"The petitioner above named most respectfully begs to submit that for the facts, reasons and circumstances as stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/ASJ Balarampur in S.S.T. No. 107/2023 in Case Crime No. 235/2023, under Sections 376, 506, I.P.C. & 3 (2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Laliya, District Balarampur.
It is further prayed that in this Hon'ble Court, may be allow this petition and direct to court concern to provide copy of statement U/A 164 Cr.P.C. and electronic evidence in Case Crime No. 235/2023, under Sections 376, 506, I.P.C. & 3 (2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Laliya, District Balarampur."
Vide order under challenge dated 04.07.2024 passed in S.S.T. No. 107/2023 (State vs. Ramesh Pathak), arising out of Case Crime No. 0235/2023, under Sections 376, 506, I.P.C. & 3 (2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Laliya, District Balarampur, the Special Judge, SC/ST Act/ASJ, Balarampur (in short "trial court") rejected the application dated 03.07.2024 preferred by the applicant under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
The aforesaid application dated 03.07.2024, under Section 207 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicant with a prayer to provide the clone of pen drive, electronic evidence and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
It would be apt to indicate here that examination-in-chief of PW-1/victim was recorded on 21.11.2023 and afterwards she was present in the court concerned on 12.02.2024 and 03.07.2024, as appears from the impugned order, for cross-examination and on 03.07.2024 i.e. the date of cross-examination of victim, the accused-applicant preferred the application under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
The trial court after taking note of the endorsement on the order sheet, as per which, the documents prepared in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were received by the accused-applicant as also the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment passed in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161, rejected the application preferred by the accused-applicant vide order impugned dated 04.07.2024, which on reproduction reads as under:-
"Case called out. Accused Ramesh Pathak is present his Ld. Counsel.
Accused/Applicants moved an application dated-03.07.2024 U/S 207 Cr.P.C. stating that the applicant is an accused in the said case and the cross- examination of the victim is scheduled today on 03.07.2024. In the said case, clone of pen drive, electronic evidence and copy of 164 Cr.P.C. statement has not been given yet. Whereas making the said evidence available to the defence would be lawful in the interest of justice. Hence, it is necessary for the prosecution to provide a copy of the above evidence to the defence for cross-examination.
On which Ld. SPP (SC/ST Act) has opposed on his application.
Heard and perused the records. From the perusal of record it reveals that accused had endorsed on order sheet "????? ??????? ????" Ld. SPP(SC/ST Act) has orally argued that IO had also written u/s 164 Cr.P.C of victim statement and its copy has been also given to accused. Accused Ld. Counsel has reliance on P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs the State of Kerela on 29.11.2019 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has propounded that however, in case including issues such as the privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The Court may issue suitable directions to balance the interest of both side.
This case is u/s 376 IPC, in which victim/P.W.-1 privacy and her identity to be disclosed supplying electronic evidence and clone of pendrive to to accused. Accused has not requested for inspection of Pen Drive and electronic evidence of Victim/P.W.-1.
From the perusal of records it also reveals that P.W.-1/victim examination in chief recorded on 21.11.2023 and afterwards she present on 12.02.2024 and 03.01.2024 but accused Ld. Counsel for delaying proceedings, not Cross- examined to P.W.-1/victim. Ld. SPP (SC/ST Act) orally further argued that this application is mover with malafied intention. I think on the above facts and circumstances and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, grounds are not sufficient.
Hence, accused application U/S 207 Cr.P.C. liable to be rejected.
Order
Accused application U/S 207 Cr.P.C. dated 03.07.2024 is rejected.
Put up for cross examination to P.W.-1 on 16.07.2024."
Considering the aforesaid as also that the recitals of the order impugned dated 04.07.2024 and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 50 of the judgment passed in the case of P. Gopalkrishnan (supra), this Court is of the view that no interference is required in the matter.
In view of above, the instant application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.10.2024
Arun/-
