LAWS(HPH)-2016-5-235

STATE OF H P Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

Decided On May 02, 2016
STATE OF H P Appellant
V/S
MOHINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Himachal Pradesh stands aggrieved by the order rendered on 22.05.2015 by the learned Special Judge, Solan, whereby it dismissed the application preferred before it by the revisionist herein under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application aforesaid instituted before the learned Special Judge, Solan, embodied manifestation of a transcript of a recorded conversation held inter se the accused and the complainant standing prepared from one spare CD, the latter whereof stood prepared from its original. For proof of the transcript of the conversation comprised in Ex.PW17/L, which stood prepared from a spare CD, the adduction into evidence of the spare CD of the original CD, wherefrom the transcript of the conversation as contained therein stood prepared, was imperative. The learned Special Judge, Solan had rejected the application on the ground of its belated institution besides on the ground of PW43 during the course of the recording of his deposition omitting to bespeak therein of one spare CD standing supplied to him by Inspector Mukesh Kumar for enabling him to prepare a transcript of the conversation contained therein. However, the aforesaid reason per se appears to be flimsy as on a reading of the deposition of PW-43, it is apparent of his communicating therein of his obtaining a spare CD from its original, wherefrom he prepared a transcript of the conversation embodied therein. Necessarily hence when the transcript of the conversation embodied in a spare CD stood prepared therefrom, the adduction of the latter into evidence in proof of the transcript prepared therefrom when hence was both just and essential renders its adduction standing ousted for per se flimsy reasons to not warrant its standing countenanced by this Court. The further reason which prevailed upon the learned Special Judge, Solan, to dismiss the application preferred before it by the State of Himachal Pradesh for the purpose aforesaid was of omission on the part of the applicant/petitioner herein to communicate therein the name of Inspector Mukesh Kumar, who had supplied to PW 43, the spare CD wherefrom a transcript of the conversation contained therein stood prepared.

(2.) Even though, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused has contended with force of the impugned order rendered on the application at hand being interlocutory hence it being unavailable for its standing assailed by the State of H.P. by its instituting a criminal revision before this Court for its being quashed and set aside. However, the apposite application instituted by the State of H.P. is in a corruption case instituted by the CID department of the police against the accused. Since proof of the transcript of the recorded conversion which occurred inter se the complainant and the accused is both imperative besides essential by adduction into evidence of the spare CD wherefrom it stand prepared , hence, given the statutory imperativeness of proof of the transcript of conversation prepared from a spare CD, of the original CD,by adduction into evidence of the relevant spare CD the latter whereof stood prepared from its original besides its constituting a statutory mode of proof of the transcript of the conversation prepared therefrom by the expert concerned, it appears that the tenable concert of the petitioner herein to in accordance with law prove the transcript of conversation as prepared by the expert concerned from the spare CD of the original rather stood untenably ousted by the learned Special Judge, Solan. The proof of the aforesaid transcript in the legally envisaged manner as concerted by the State of H.P. would have unearthed the incriminatory role of the accused/respondent herein. Moreover, it constituted the best scientific evidence to clinch the guilt of the accused. Necessarily hence when the guilt of the accused may have acquired sustenance by the endeavours of the prosecution even if the apposite endeavours were made by it at a belated stage, the learned Special Judge, Solan, unwarrantedly merely for belated institution before it of the application at hand by the revisionist has frustrated the aforesaid concerts made before it by the revisionist herein with the manifest sequel of the revisionist standing precluded to prove the factum devolving besides impinging upon the guilt of the accused.

(3.) Be that as it may, the learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted before this Court that the purported voice of the accused/respondent as occurrs in the spare CD wherefrom a transcript stands prepared by the expert concerned, stands not conclusively opined by the FSL concerned to be the voice of the respondent/accused. In face thereof, the transcript of the conversation held inter se the accused and the complainant transcript whereof stood prepared by the expert concerned from a spare CD cannot hence constitute formidable evidence in possession of the State of H.P. to hence clinch the guilt of the accused/respondent.