CHANDGIRAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., assailing the order of the learned Trial Court dated 26.11.2011 whereby two applications under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and one application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioner for summoning of some documents were dismissed. The petitioner herein was working as a security guard at the Masih Automobiles Petrol Pump, Anand Vihar and is charged along with other co-accused persons for offences under Section 302/506/323/325/34 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act and the Trial Court proceedings are pending in the Court of Sh. P.S. Teji, learned ASJ. The allegations against the petitioner are that on 30.09.2009 at around 11.00 P.M., four people including the deceased, Himanshu Sharma came at the petrol pump in their Honda City car and the deceased started urinating on the wall of the petrol pump. Thereafter, Mukesh Lal, who was at the relevant time the incharge of Masih Automobiles Petrol Pump, Anand Vihar and the other staff entered into an altercation with the four of them. According to the testimony of Vineet Sharma, who was one of the persons in the Honda City car, the petitioner fired at the deceased, Himanshu Sharma at the instance of Mukesh Lal resulting in his death.

(2.) The case before the learned ASJ is at the stage of recording of prosecution evidence. Out of the total of 53 witnesses, 24 witness have been examined. In the application filed by the petitioner, the DD entries dated 30.09.2009 and 01.10.2009, along with DD entries of the Crime Team receiving information and the incident report are sought to summoned. Further, the malkhana register, the mortuary register, log book of PCR vehicle and call details with Cell ID of various mobile numbers 9811498020, 9810986899, 9899649902, 9953576329, 9871156664 and 9873188306 are also sought to be summoned. In addition to that, the statements given by one of the eye witness to the TV Channel contained in a CD is also sought to be produced by the petitioner for the purpose of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Further a prayer is also made for correction of typographical error in the statement of PW1 Mr. Anklesh dated 19.5.2011 and 4.8.2011.

(3.) The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the production of the documents mentioned in the applications by the petitioner are essential for his defence and in declining to summon the above mentioned documents, the learned ASJ has deprived the petitioner of his right of confronting the witnesses in cross-examination and to prove his innocence.