PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of an application filed by the applicant/Respondent State under Sec. 311, read with Sec. 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for summoning the witness, Sh. Prithvi Singh Chauhan and leading the additional evidence.

(2.) It has been averred in the application that Sh. Prithvi Singh Chauhan, the then Secretary, Gram Panchayat had entered the date of birth of the child victim in the births and deaths register of the concerned Gram Panchayat, but inadvertently he was not cited as a witness at the time of preparation of the chargesheet, as such, he had not been examined before the learned trial Court. It has further been averred that the statement of the aforesaid witness is very relevant to prove the age of the child victim and, therefore, he may be summoned alongwith entire record from the concerned Gram Panchayat.

(3.) Reply to the application has been filed by the non-applicant/appellant, wherein, it has been averred that the entries in the births and deaths register are per se admissible and, therefore, there is no legal requirement to examine the author of such entries. It has further been averred in the reply that by filing the present application the applicant/State is trying to re-open the case with malafide intention to fill the loopholes of the case, thereby causing serious damage and inherent prejudice to the defence of the non-applicant/appellant. In support of his arguments, a strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the non-applicant/appellant upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swapan Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2019) 14 SCC 328.