Delhi High Court
Sarfaraz Hussain vs State on 18 February, 2009
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Criminal Appeal No. 83/2001
% Date of Order : February, 18, 2009
SARFARAZ HUSSAIN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Anil Soni, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE .....Respondent
Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? Yes
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. During the course of arguments we find that PW-8 Roop
Singh who was partially examined, never returned for further
examination. The result is PW-8 was not cross-examined.
2. The weapon of offence is purported to have been
recovered pursuant to the purported disclosure statement of the
appellant.
3. PW-8 Roop Singh is a Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics)
CFSL, New Delhi. It is obvious that his evidence would be crucial to
the case. Indeed, the impugned decision shows that the learned
trial Judge has referred to the opinion of PW-8.
4. We note that the original reports prepared by PW-8
were not filed and do not form part of the trial court record. We
note that when PW-8 was partially examined, the said reports were
marked P-A to P-D.
5. We note that according to PW-8 he was the author of
only one report marked P-A.
6. Learned counsel of the appellant points out that only
one report marked P-A was found to be relevant as per the
impugned judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the State submits that all the
reports are relevant for the reasons the one relating to presence of
blood of the group thereof are also relevant.
8. Be that as it may, it is apparent that a valuable right of
the appellant has been adversely affected in the form of use of the
testimony of PW-8 without subjecting the witness to cross
examination.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the right
of the appellant to cross-examine the witness with respect to the
purity of the seals being intact when the packets/pullandahs
containing the items therein were sent to CFSL has been affected.
10. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, we
dispose of the appeal setting aside the impugned judgement dated
22.01.2001 as also the order on sentence dated 27.01.2001.
11. The matter is remanded back to the trial court for fresh
adjudication. Needless to state, the correction shall be effected in
the defective procedure followed, in that, PW-8 would be re-
summoned. His examination-in-chief would be completed followed
by his cross-examination.
12. Since the original reports are not on record, the
prosecution may take such steps as are advised in law to prove
photocopies of the four reports.
13. The appellant is on bail. He shall continue to remain on
bail on the existing terms till the matter is decided afresh by the
learned trial Judge.
14. TCR be returned forthwith.
15. The learned APP for the State and the accused i.e. the
appellant shall appear before the learned Sessions Judge Delhi on
2nd April, 2009.
16. Attested copy of the order be sent to the concerned
trial court as well as to the State.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(ARUNA SURESH)
February 18, 2009 JUDGE
vk
