SATISH Vs. STATE N.C.T OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner assails the order dtd. 19/3/2025 [hereafter 'impugned order'], passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North-West, Rohini Courts, New Delhi [hereafter 'Trial Court'] vide which the application preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 348 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [hereafter 'BNSS'], seeking summoning of a witness namely Ms. Priyanka Sehgal, was dismissed, in case arising out of FIR No. 378/2013, Police Station Kanjhawala, North-West, Delhi.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that on 17/11/2013, pursuant to receipt of a PCR call, the police had reached the spot and found that the villagers of the area had caught hold of a man, i.e. the present petitioner Satish, who had been beaten up by the members of public. Upon enquiring, the police was informed that the petitioner had entered the house of one Deepak at night (for committing theft) and had caught hold of the prosecutrix. The medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangolpuri. Upon a complaint being lodged by the prosecutrix, the FIR was initially registered for offence under Ss. 451/354 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [hereafter 'IPC']. Thereafter, the statement of prosecutrix was recorded under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereafter 'Cr.P.C.'], wherein she disclosed that the petitioner herein had removed his as well as prosecutrix's clothes and was about to rape her. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed for offence under Ss. 376/323/451 of IPC. As set out in the petition, charges were initially framed under Ss. 451/323/376 read with Sec. 511 of IPC, but after recording of testimony of the prosecutrix, Sec. 511 of IPC was removed. Between 2016 and 2023, the prosecution evidence was recorded. The statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 6/12/2023 and 20/2/2024. Thereafter, the accused (petitioner) opted to lead defence evidence, and examined three defence witnesses between the period 27/2/2024 to 14/8/2024. The defence evidence then stood closed and the matter was put for final arguments.

(3.) It is the petitioner's case that he and the prosecutrix shared a friendly relationship even before her marriage, which continued afterward. They used to talk frequently, especially when the prosecutrix's husband was away, and she had introduced the petitioner to her husband as a friend, and her husband had also taken a loan from the petitioner. When the petitioner had asked for repayment, the prosecutrix, allegedly at her husband's insistence, had called him to her house on the pretext of returning the money. However, when he had arrived, he was beaten up, and a false story was created to frame him as a thief. Later, in an attempt to cover up their actions, the prosecutrix and her husband had allegedly falsely implicated the petitioner in this case. As part of his defence, the petitioner had produced a voice recording of a conversation between the prosecutrix and the wife of petitioner, which he claimed shows that the allegations were fabricated. Although the prosecutrix had denied the voice was hers during cross-examination, the recording was later exhibited during defence evidence along with a certificate under Sec. 65B of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 [hereafter 'BSA']. In this background, the petitioner had moved an application under Sec. 39 of BSA, seeking directions for recording the voice samples of the prosecutrix and the wife of the petitioner and for comparison with the audio recording placed on record by the petitioner, but the same was dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dtd. 31/1/2025.