IN RE : SMT. SMRITIKANA BASU MALLICK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that evidence of the petitioner was incorrectly recorded by the learned Trial Court. Such issue of incorrect recording of evidence is to be dealt with in terms of sub Sec. (2) of Sec. 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This view has been enunciated by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 1989(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 346 : AIR 1989 SC 1785. In paragraph 14 of the said report the Court held as follows : "The object of Sec. 278 is two fold : firstly to ensure that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the Judge considers necessary he will make it at once as required by sub-section (1) but if the correction is such that the Judge does not consider necessary, sub-section (2) requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the Judge add his remarks, if any, thereto. In the present case, the learned trial Judge corrected all the typographical errors which he considered necessity but refused to carry out the substantive part of his deposition. The section is not intended to permit a witness to resile from his statement in the name of correction." Learned Judge failed to apply the aforesaid law and illegally dismissed the application.

(2.) Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Learned Trial Court is directed to record a memorandum with regard to the objections raised by the petitioner as to the incorrect recording of her evidence and make remarks therein, if any, as a part of the record of the case. With regard to the prayer for correction of evidence of other witnesses, Mr. Mitter, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2, rightly raises objection that such concerns cannot be ventilated by the petitioner herself. In the event the objection is raised by the witnesses themselves, the same shall be considered by the learned Trial Court in the light of the aforesaid observations and in accordance with law with regard to the alleged incorrect recording of evidence of the other witnesses.

(3.) With the aforesaid directions, the revisional application is disposed of.