Raghvendra Singh Rajput vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15974 MP

                                                              1
                           IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                              ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2022
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3717 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          RAGHVENDRA SINGH RAJPUT S/O KAMLESH SINGH
                          RAJPUT, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          BUSINESS, R/O JAWAHAR COLONY BARELI, DISTRICT
                          RAISEN (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI JAYANT NEEKHRA - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
                          STATION BARELI, DISTRICT RAISEN (MADHYA
                          PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI AMIT PANDEY - PANEL LAWYER)

                                This revision coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
                          following:
                                                               ORDER

Assailing the order dated 15.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Court whereby the application filed on behalf of the applicant/accused praying for call details and the tower location of the eye witnesses have been rejected.

The first information report was got registered against the revisionist for the offences under Section 302, 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Crime No.114 of 2021 registered at Police Station Bareli, District Raisen.

The allegation against the applicant other co-accused is that on 16.03.2021 at about 12.00 AM, they went to house of deceased Shivraj who Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 12/9/2022 5:50:39 PM

was sitting outside his house abused him and the petitioner has fired a gun shot which resulted into his death. The incident was seen by Sapna Rajput w/o deceased Shivraj, Ankit Rajput and Sachin Rajput who are cousin brother of the deceased and Krishna Pal Singh @ Jhabbu brother of the deceased. Their statements have been recorded before the trial Court. It is a defence of the revisionist that so called eye witnesses were not present at the place of incident. Therefore, they cannot be stated to be eye witnesses of the case. As per the prosecution, the witnesses were carrying their cell phones, therefore, an application was filed to call for the details and tower location with respect to mobile numbers mentioned by the prosecution. This will be the main defence

and will demolished the entire case of the prosecution.

The learned trial Court has not appreciated the aforesaid aspect of the case and has rejected the application, therefore, this revision is filed. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar vs. UOI passed in SLP (Crl) No.1477 of 2014 decided on 06.05.2014 and has argued for calling of the entire record as mentioned in the application to enable him to put forth their plausible defence as the right to fair trial is the right of the accused.

The learned trial Court while considering the application has arrived at a conclusion that it cannot be proved by the tower location or call details that whether the applicant was present at the place of commission of offence or not. There is every possibility that the mobiles phones may be left at the house or may be with somebody else. Therefore, merely calling for such details without any other corroborative peace of evidence, no fruitful purpose will be served.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the it is seen that four eye witnesses have been recorded Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 12/9/2022 5:50:39 PM

before the trial Court. Thereafter, an application has been filed calling for the call details of the so called eye witnesses to establish the case that eye witnesses were not present at the place of incident. The same would amount to collecting of the evidence by way of an application. The accused is required to prove his own case. It is his case that the eye witnesses were not present at the place of commission of offence. The heavy burden is upon the accused to establish that they were present at some other place. Merely, calling for the call details of their mobile numbers and tower location will not prove that they were not present at the place of commission of offence. There is every possibility that they were left their cell phones at their home or at some other places.

In absence of any other corroborative material available on record, no illegality appears to have been committed by the trial Court in rejecting the application.

The case law which has been relied by the applicant is virtually on different footings, therefore, no benefit of the same can be extended to the applicant/accused.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE irfan

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 12/9/2022 5:50:39 PM