BALJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was heard on 26/8/2022 and it was placed today for dictation of judgment.

(2.) Few facts which are required to be considered before venturing into the legal prospective with regards to the impugned order of 1/12/2021, resulting into rejection of an application under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C., by the court of First Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2018 State vs. Harjeet Singh and Others.

(3.) An FIR No. 10 of 2018 was registered on 7/1/2018 with regards to the involvement of the named accused persons therein, in the FIR for commission of offence under Ss. 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 IPC. At this stage the detailed analysis about the set of allegations levelled in the FIR, in relation to the involvement of each of the co-accused persons is not required to be ventured into by this Court, on its merits for the reason being, that the counsel for the applicant has confined her arguments qua the impugned order, rejecting the application which was preferred by the applicant co-accused, under Sec. 91 of the Cr.P.C., which finds place on the records. In the application thus filed by one of the co-accused persons. In the application thus preferred under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. by Tersem Singh, the co-accused which was numbered as Paper No. 113 Kha. The prayer, which was sought for was, that the DVR, which was taken in possession by the police that may be summoned by the court for the purposes of its consideration during the trial. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order exclusively based upon the statement of the owner of the Jewellery Shop i.e. Krishna Jewellers namely, Mr. Vilayati Ram, son of Harbansh Lal, who has made a statement, that in the incident, which has chanced on 7/1/2018 and the incident which stood recorded by CCTV Camera, it was only the recording of the CCTV Camera footage, which in fact was taken in the custody by the police and in fact no DVR was taken. As such, in that eventuality, the court has drawn an inference, for assigning the reasoning, which has been assigned in para 10 of the impugned order dtd. 1/12/2021, that since in accordance with the statement of Mr. Vilayati Ram, as the DVR (Digital Video Recorder), was not taken in possession by the police, there is no occasion for the same to be placed on record by invoking the provisions contained under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C.