SIRANGANAHALLI RANGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the prosecution in a sessions case, whereby the accused are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 302 read with 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC' for brevity), had filed an application under Section 91 read with Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.PC' for brevity), seeking permission to display a video cassette (or may be a compact disc which expressions are interchangeably used in the order) recording the sequence of the accused showing the place of occurrence and the dead body to the Police and also to recall two witnesses.

(2.) THE prosecution had contended that the said material, though available at the time when the evidence was adduced before the court below, could not be readily produced, since it was misplaced and it is only after a fervent search that the same has been recovered and therefore, the application.

(3.) AS stated by the lower court, it was certainly not prohibited to produce material evidence, which may be essential to arrive at a proper decision. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be shut out from producing any such material. If it is the contention of the petitioner that the material sought to be produced is concocted, it is always open to test the same in cross-examination of the concerned witnesses and to establish the same before the court below. Accordingly, the present petition does not merit consideration and is rejected.