GOVERDHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under section 482 CrPC is directed against order passed by the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge. Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.76/2015 dated 22.5.2015 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed an application filed by the present applicant under section 91 CrPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this application are that two prosecution witnesses Makhan and Lakhan who were sons of the deceased were examined by t he prosecution. In their statements under section 161 CrPC two mobile numbers were mentioned. By the application under section 91 of CrPC. the present applicant sought to call the record in respect of calls made by these mobile numbers and also location of mobile phones at the relevant time. As per the averment in the application, the call details and record in respect of location arc destroyed within one year and, therefore, if such record is not called or preserved, the defence of the present applicant shall be unreasonably affected.

(3.) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution witnesses did not admit in their statements and no question was asked whether they were carrying the mobile phones at the relevant time when the incident took place. He also distinguished the order passed by the Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9274/2012 Kripalsingh v. Stale of M.P., dated 27.2.2013 on the ground that in that case call details of police officers were sought to be called as there was allegation of false implication, however, in this case veracity of these two witnesses is to be ascertained during cross -examination.