NIKHIL VINAYAK NARULE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Shri Atul Rawlani for applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri M.J.Khan for the State.

(2.) By this revision, the challenge has been raised to order dtd. 27/6/2024 passed below Exh.113 by learned Extra Joint District Judge and Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, POCSO Court), Nagpur in Special Criminal (Child) Case No.482/2022 whereby the application moved by the applicants (the accused) for supplying a clone copy of the data available in Pen-Drive submitted by the Investigating Officer having statement of the victim.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused submitted the clone copy (transcript of the statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in the nature of Audio/Video Recording) of statement be provided to the accused to allow them by giving a fair opportunity to confront the said statement to the witness in view of Sec. 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is contended that though the prosecution supplied him copy of the statement in a Pen- Drive, the Audio/Video Recording itself shows that the police officer who recorded the said statement has also reduced it into the writing and the accused has right to have a copy of the same in the interests of a fair trial. The fair trial is the fundamental right of the accused. It is further submitted that the reasoning given by the trial court is not reasonable and is affecting the right of a fair trial of the present accused. A full transcript of the Audio has to be provided to the accused and if it is not provided, it would seriously affect impartiality and fairness of the trial proceedings.