Dablu Mishra @ Dablu Giri @ Rakesh ... vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 3210 Jhar

                               -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    Cr. Revision No.426 of 2023
1.Dablu Mishra @ Dablu Giri @ Rakesh Kumar Mishra @ Mirtunjay
Giri
2.Sagar Singh @ Shibu
3.Kurban Ali
4.Chandan Singh                                ..... ... Petitioners
                            Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Abheshek Sing                          .... .... Opposite Parties
                         --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

For the Petitioners     : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the State           : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2       : Mr. Nishant Kumar, Advocate
                        --------
04/28 August, 2023
       th

1. The present criminal revision has been preferred on behalf of the

petitioners against the order dated 23rd March, 2023 passed by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in S.T. Case

No.267 of 2017 arising out of Saraidhela P.S. Case No.48 of 2017,

whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners

under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C. for issuing the summons to the

defence witness has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that after

concluding the prosecution evidence, the case was fixed for the

defence evidence and at the stage of defence evidence, an

application was moved on behalf of the petitioners to summon the

Senior Correspondents of Hindi Newspaper Hindustan and Prabhat

Khabar, Dhanbad and City Reporter of Dainik Bhasker Newspaper,

Dhanbad to show that prior to the date of Test Identification

Parade (T.I.P.), the photographs of all the accused persons were

published in the newspaper as the identity of the accused persons

had already been disclosed prior to the date of T.I.P. to show his

defence case that the T.I.P. had lost its significance. The

petitioners wanted to call for the witnesses but the learned court

below had rejected the application on the sole ground that the

newspapers are the secondary evidence and newspaper reports

had no any evidentiary value.

3. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the Opposite

Party No.2 vehemently opposed the contentions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that this

application was moved only in order to prolong the proceeding of

the trial. During cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses,

the newspapers reports were also shown to the prosecution

witness even the exhibits were also marked by the prosecution

witness in cross-examination. After exhibition, the same would be

admissible in evidence and no purpose will be served to call for

the defence witnesses, as prayed in the petition moved on behalf

of the petitioners.

4. From perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the petition

was moved on behalf of the present petitioners/accused before

the trial court to issue summons to Crime Reporter, Press

Correspondent and Senior Correspondent/Reporter of Hindi daily

newspaper, Prabhat Khabar, Hindustan, Dainik Bhasker and Dainik

Jagran in respect of flashing of unveiled photographs of the

petitioners prior to their T.I.P. The learned court below had

rejected the application on the sole ground that newspaper item in

itself is not proof of what had actually happened and the

newspaper reports per se do not constitute legally acceptable

evidence.

5. From the impugned order itself, it is evident that P.W.-22, Abhishek

Singh had admitted several documents of the newspapers having

been variously marked as D/1, D/2 and A/13 and in view of

Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the newspapers are the documents

that may form part of the documentary evidence in judicial

proceedings. It is also evident that under Sections 61 to 73 of the

Evidence Act, the newspaper report should be admissible in

evidence and the reporters or correspondents are required to

appear before the court to mark exhibit.

6. Admittedly, the case was at the stage of defence evidence. Only

purpose to summon the Crime Reporter, Press Correspondent and

Senior Correspondent/Reporter of Hindi daily Newspaper Prabhat

Khabar, Hindustan, Dainik Jagran and Dainik Bhasker in respect to

flashing of unveiled photographs of the petitioners prior to their

T.I.P. The finding recorded by the court below is contradictory in

itself, wherein the court below has given finding that newspaper

report has no evidentiary value and sometimes media creates a

series of unconscious pressures by way of wrong reporting. In

order to prove the contents of the newspaper in regard to veracity

of the same it is the editor of the newspaper concerned, who has

to justify in regard to publication of the same. Certainly, the

newspaper is a secondary evidence but its contents can be proved

by the editor himself from whom and how he came to know in

regard to the news which was published by him in the newspaper.

Herein the examination of the veracity of the photographs which

were published in the newspaper of the accused persons /

petitioners herein, much before the date of T.I.P., the evidence of

the editor becomes necessary to show whether the identity of the

accused persons was disclosed in the newspaper prior to TIP or

not. Therefore, the examination of the editor(s) of the

newspaper(s) will enable the court to come on the proper

conclusion while passing the judgment on the basis of their

evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and defence as

well.

7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the O.P. No.2

that the exhibits have already been marked on these newspapers

by the prosecution witness, the same has no bearing reason being

that none of the prosecution witness who marked the exhibit was

the editor or reporter or correspondent of those newspapers.

Therefore, the veracity of the publication cannot be evaluated in

the light of those exhibits marked.

8. In view of the discussions as made hereinabove, this Court is of

the view that the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 passed

by the learned court below needs interference and the present

criminal revision deserves to be allowed.

9. Accordingly this criminal revision is, hereby, allowed and the

impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023 is set aside to the extent

of rejection of application of the petitioners and the court below is

directed to allow the application of the petitioners by permitting

them to call for the editors of the daily Hindi Newspaper, Dainik

Bhasker, Dainik Jagran and Hindustan as well.

10. It is made clear that no un-necessary adjournment shall be

granted to the petitioners, if they prayed for the same.

(Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit