DHARMARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted, Public Prosecutor takes notice. Heard Admitted, Public Prosecutor takes notice. Heard

(2.) Challenge is made in this revision against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in M.P. 95 of 2002 in S.C. 241 of 2000 on the file of that court. Crl. M.P. has been filed seeking permission of the Court to use the statement of PW.1 alleged to be recorded by A.S.I. of Police one P.K. Balakrishnan on 27-2-1996 under Section 161 Cr. P.C. for contradicting PW. 1 under Section 162 Cr. P.C. in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.

(3.) The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that "the purported statement, the copy of which is produced by the defence along with the petition in question, is not produced along with the records contained under Section 173 Cr. P.C. and supplied to the defence." Learned Sessions Judge further held that it is not a statement relied on by the prosecution and declined to allow the prayer made in the Crl. M.P. on the ground that no evidence is forthcoming to prove that statement (statement purported to be that of the prosecutrix recorded by the Investigating Officer on 27-2-1996in the course of investigation), is truly recorded. To fortify his conclusion learned Sessions Judge held that his predecessor found that the purported statement is "ingenuine." Holding that the alleged statement is not genuine, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Crl. M.P..