ISHWAR DAYAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri to allow the petitioner to cross examine Naresh Kumar, retired Sub Inspector (PW20) in respect of contents of Compact Disc (in short, 'CD') by displaying it in the Court.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that FIR No. 120 dated 18.10.2011 was registered in Police Station Sadar Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar for offence punishable under Sections 302, 120-B, 201, 176, 202 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act in regard to murder of Sarla Devi and Pinkoo at the instance of Manoj Kumar son of late Jagmal Singh.

(3.) On completion of investigation, the police submitted report under Sec. 173 Cr.P.C against Manoj Kumar alias Moji son of late Prithvi Singh, Nirmal alias Kala son of Ishwar Dayal, Virender alias Swami son of Rajbir Singh, Narender alias Monu son of Chunni Lal and Ishwar Dayal, Sarpanch (petitioner herein). The petitioner has been charged for committing offence punishable under Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that the petitioner has been implicated in the crime as he openly criticised the police of the concerned Police Station holding them responsible for murder of two innocent ladies at the hands of co-accused Manoj son of late Prithvi Singh. The media persons of the local news channel video-graphed the episode and telecast the same at the local news channel. The 'CD' was prepared by the media persons which was put by counsel for the petitioner to Naresh Kumar, the then Sub Inspector (PW20). It is argued that the learned trial Court committed a grave error and in an illegal manner scuttled right of the petitioner to confront the witness with contents of the 'CD', to be proved to establish his innocence and false implication due to protest against the police and accusing them to be responsible for the murders. It is further argued that a serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case he is not permitted to cross examine the witness in respect of contends of the 'CD' by displaying it in the Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon judgment of this Court Lior Avi Ben Moyal Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh, 2009(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 762.