SATHIS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first accused in S.C. No. 78 of 2014 on the file of the Sessions Court/Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Erode is the petitioner. The petitioner is facing charge under sections 120B, 364, 302, 392, 291 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Along with the petitioner, one Manikandan was also arrayed as third accused and the said Manikandan filed a Petition in Crl. M.P. No. 100 of 2014 under section 306 of Cr.P.C., before the said Court seeking permission to treat him as an approver in the case and that petition was allowed, his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he was treated as approver in support of the prosecution and was examined as C.W. 1. During cross-examination of the said Manikandan, a question was asked to him/C.W. 1 regarding the presence of a Constable in the Court premises, by name, Manzoor, attached to Sivagiri Police Station. Another suggestion was put to Manikandan/C.W. 1 that he was kept in a lodge along with the said Manzoor and the said Manzoor was also coming to the Court along with him and that was denied by the said witness C.W. 1. Another question was also asked to C.W. 1 to the effect that Manzoor, the constable was also present in the Court. C.W. 1 answered that he did not know any person, by name, Manzoor. Thereafter, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/A. 1 informed the court that the photographs of Manzoor talking with C.W. 1s were taken in the Cell Phone in the afternoon while taking lunch with C.W. 1 and sought permission to show those photographs to the witness C.W. 1 and mark the photographs through him but the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge stated that the petitioner may approach the High Court and obtain clarification about the refusal by the Court with regard to photographs shown by the counsel and deferred the cross-examination. Therefore, this petition is filed by the petitioner stating that the Court ought to have allowed the photographs to be shown to C.W. 1 and directed C.W. 1 to answer the questions with relations to the photographs. Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in rejecting the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court below in showing the photographs taken in the afternoon during the cross-examination of C.W. 1. He further submitted that in the photographs, the police Constable, by name, Manzoor and C.W. 1 along with two other policemen were sitting together and the purpose of showing those photographs to C.W. 1 was to discredit the evidence of C.W. 1 who has also deposed that he did not know any person by name Manzoor and under section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, questions may be asked to the witnesses to test his veracity if it affects the credit of the witness by injuring his character and sufficient guidelines have been provided under section 148 of the Indian Evidence Act and the petitioner must have been permitted to show the photographs taken in the Cell Phone to C.W. 1 and put questions to C.W. 1 regarding the persons found in the photographs. He also submitted that even though approver's evidence cannot be the basis for conviction, it may be used when there are corroboration to the approver's evidence in material particulars and therefore, to discredit the evidence of approver, the photographs ought to have been marked and the petitioner must be allowed to put questions to C.W. 1. He also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention:--

(2.) In the judgment reported in 2015-1-L.W. (Crl.) 273 supra, the learned Judge of this Court considered sections 132, 138, 146, 147 and 148 of the Indian Evidence Act and held as follows:--

(3.) Therefore, by applying the principles laid down in the judgment referred to as above, to test the veracity or to discredit the evidence of approver, questions can be asked. However, the photographs alleged to have been taken on a particular date can be marked through the person who had taken the photographs and thereafter, the questions can be asked with respect to such photographs to C.W. 1. Hence, the petition is disposed of by directing the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Erode, to follow the guidelines given in the aforesaid decision and permit the petitioner/A.1 to cross-examine C.W. 1 with respect to those Photographs after marking them through proper source. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.