JAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant revision petition under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C., accused petitioner has laid challenge to order dt. 20th of January 2018 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Churu (for short, 'learned trial Court'), rejecting his prayer to take on record CD showing interview of the prosecution witness Investigating Officer Bhagwati Singh (PW16) and displaying the same before his cross-examination.

(2.) The facts opposite for the purpose of this revision petition are that complainant Ms. 'M' gave a Parcha Bayan on 26th of January 2012 at 9:35 PM to SHO Bhagwati Singh at D.B. Hospital, Churu, alleging therein that three days before when she was alone at home, accused-petitioner came there and subjected her to rape. The Parcha Bayan further revealed that today also accused-petitioner made an attempt to ravish her but when she resisted his sinister designs, he poured kerosene upon her and lit fire with intent to kill her. On the basis of Parcha Bayan, FIR No.08/12 was registered for offence under Sec. 452, 307, 376 IPC. During the course of investigation, complainant Ms. 'M' succumbed to the burn injuries and therefore upon completion of investigation petitioner is charge-sheeted for offence under Sec. 302, 376 and 450 IPC and the requisite charge-sheet was also submitted before Judicial Magistrate, Churu. Later on, the concerned Judicial Magistrate, while resorting to Sec. 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions and presently trial in the matter is under progress before the learned trial Court as Sessions Case No.3/2012.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisite CD showing interview of the prosecution witness I.O. Bhagwati Singh be taken on record and its display before the Court may be permitted in the interest of justice before his further cross-examination. It is also argued by learned counsel that in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case requirement of Certificate under Sec. 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act is not necessary. It is also contended by learned counsel that learned trial Court has seriously erred in invoking embargo envisaged under Sec. 65-B(4) so as to render the impugned order vulnerable. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Shafhi Mohammad vs. State of Himachal Pradesh,2018 CrLR 133 (SC).