AMULYA KUMAR PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant revision, the petitioner calls in question legality of the order dated 24-4-2006 passed by the learned ad hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Aska in s. C. Nos. 26 and 66 of 2004. By the impugned order, learned Addl. Sessions Judge allowed the prayer of the prosecution to display video cassettes, which are marked as m. Os. I, V and VI, for better appreciation of the evidence available on record.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, which are relevant for the purpose of this revision, are that the petitioner along with other accused persons is facing trial in the aforesaid sessions Cases for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/365/120-B, ipc. During the course of investigation, the petitioner, while in custody, confessed before the I. O. to commit the above offences and such admission of the petitioner has been recorded through video cassettes at the instance of the I. O. During the course of trial, the aforesaid video cassettes have been marked as M. Os. V and VI without objection. On 19-4-2006, prosecution filed a petition for displaying the said video cassettes. Petitioner filed counter to the said application stating therein that the bald prayer of the prosecution was, not maintainable and that in order to fill up the lacuna, the prosecution had filed the said petition. Since video recording of the so-called confessional statement has been made in presence of the. police, the same is not admissible in evidence and, as such, the petition should be rejected. But the trial Court after hearing the parties rejected the objection of the petitioner, allowed the petition filed by the prosecution and directed the prosecution to make necessary arrangements for display of the above video cassettes.

(3.) MR. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after closure of the prosecution evidence on 10-3-2006, the case was posted for accused statement. On the said date, a petition for displaying the video cassettes was filed by the prosecution. Therefore, the petition for displaying the video cassettes after closure of the prosecution evidence is not maintainable. He further submitted that confession before a police officer about the crime is inadmissible in evidence in view of the bar under sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted that the whole exercise of recording video cassettes appears to have been guided and cpntrolled by the I. O. The version of the petitioner to the questions put by the I. O. in presence of the witnesses has been recorded in the cassettes. The said evidence is not admissible. In other words, the said recording of the video cassettes is not admissible in evidence and, as such, it need not be. displayed. Further, display of video cassettes by the prosecution would create bias in the mind of the Court. Therefore, there is chance of emotion, which may affect the judicial determination.