SHANTI LAL KANKARIYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred by the Complainant against the order dated 8.6.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara in Sessions Trial No.H-05/2015, whereby the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application preferred by the Complainant/Applicant with regard to marking exhibit on the documents submitted by the Complainant and also rejected the prayer made with regard to calling the original report dated 21.1.2015 made by the Complainant to the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant/Applicant is father of injured Soma Ostwal. Respondent No.2 is husband of Soma Ostwal. Their marriage was solemnised on 30.4.2002. Allegedly, after the marriage, Soma Ostwal was subjected to cruelty and harassment by Respondent No.2 and his family members for demand of dowry. It was further alleged that on 14.1.2015, Respondent No.2 assaulted Soma Ostwal and attempted to commit her murder. On 14.1.2015 itself, First Information Report was lodged by the Complainant/Applicant. On the basis of FIR, offence under Sections 498A , 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and on completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges and statement of the Complainant/Applicant was recorded during trial on 9.5.2018. Thereafter, on 9.5.2018, an application was filed by the Applicant stating that on 21.1.2015, he had made a detailed written report to the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar. In the application, he prayed for marking exhibits on copy of the said written report dated 21.1.2015 and copy of its acknowledgment. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.6.2018 on the ground that both the documents are not part of the charge-sheet and original thereof are not available, therefore, photo copies cannot be exhibited. On 7.6.2018, a separate application was filed by the Complainant/Applicant making a prayer that the original report dated 21.1.2015 be called from the police and placed on the record of the case. This prayer was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order dated 8.6.2018 on the ground that the Complainant/Applicant filed the said application through his private Counsel directly and he himself is trying to conduct the trial. It was further observed by the Trial Court that sufficient material is available on record to prove the case of the prosecution and in future if need arise the prosecution can file an application for calling the original report dated 21.1.2015 made by the Applicant to the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that the impugned order dated 8.6.2018 suffers from perversity and illegality and is, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Trial Court has committed an illegality by not allowing the application filed by the Applicant. The impugned order passed by the Trial Court is improper and illegal and is, therefore, liable to be set aside.