ABHISHEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order dated 19.06.2019 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Korba, District Korba in Sessions Trial No.58/2016, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the application filed by the prosecution under sub Section 8 of Section 173 Cr.P.C. and taken the CD (audio recording) on record.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that before the trial Court, a charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 306 IPC. The case was fixed for prosecution evidence. During trial, the prosecution filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and prayed that the audio recording of the deceased and father of the deceased may be taken on record. The learned trial Court, under the impugned order dated 19.06.2019, allowing the application taken the audio recording on record. Hence, this revision petition by the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned order, has not considered the facts of the case in proper manner and thus the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case and no case under Section 306 IPC has been made out against the applicant. He further submits that the prosecution has presented the audio recording (CD) after a delay of abut two years from the filing of the charge sheet. The charge sheet was filed on 15.06.2016, whereas the present CD has been submitted by the prosecution on 19.06.2019. The prosecution agency is well aware of the fact that the supplementing additional evidence on record at such a belated stage is fatal for the trial. The police filed the said evidence without conducting any investigation and placed the clip on record which was directly handed over to them by the complainant. He also submits that the complainant has made false allegation against the parents of the petitioner who were granted anticipatory bail by this High Court. They had made a false allegation against the applicant too and because of which the charge under Section 302 was framed, but the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 13.11.2018 passed in CRR No.700/2018 set aside the erroneous order framing an additional charge of section 302 r/w section 34 IPC. The complainant also made a failed attempt to transfer the case from Korba to Bilaspur in order to harass the petitioner. He also submits that the present CD supplemented into the record of the case is another tactic from their end in order to delay the trial. It is next submitted that the complainant/father of the deceased, in para 9 and 11 of his examination in chief, has clearly stated that there was just one voice recording pertaining to the conversation between the complainant and her deceased daughter and the said voice recording was incorporated in a CD and the same was already seized by the police vide Ex.P/8. It is added that neither a seizure memo nor a seizure witness has been produced by the prosecution in order to bring the said CD on record. That apart, the learned trial Court has accepted the electronic record without conducting a proper forensic examination of the same. Thus, the order of the learned trial Court allowing the application of the prosecution filed under Section 178(8) of Cr.P.C. deserves to be set aside. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1978 SC 47, Reeta Nag Vs. State of west Bengal and others reported in (2009) 9 SCC 129 and the decision of this High Court in the matter of Amamath Agrawal Vs. Jai Singh Agrawal and others reported in 2015(2)CGLJ 261.