Criminal Revision Application (Against order passed by Subordinate Court) No. 427 of 2014. Case: State of Gujarat Vs Fulesh. High Court of Gujarat (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Revision Application (Against order passed by Subordinate Court) No. 427 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: J.D. Jhaveri, A.P.P. and For Respondents: Nigam Shukla, Adv. |
| Judges | S. G. Shah, J. |
| Issue | Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 135(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 172, 173, 173(2), 207, 243, 311, 313, 91; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 145; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 506(2) |
| Citation | 2014 (3) GLR 2739 |
| Judgement Date | August 07, 2014 |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat (India) |
Judgment:
S. G. Shah, J.
-
Rule. Mr. Shukla waives service of Rule for the respondents. The State has challenged the judgment and order dated 29-4-2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Court No. 12, whereby the application Exh. 139 in Sessions Case No. 144 of 2011 preferred by the respondents-accused under Sec. 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is allowed and thereby Investigating Officer (I.O.) of Satellite Police Station of C.R. No. I-683 of 2010 is directed to produce the documents as prayed for by the accused in Para 5 of the application. It is not disputed that Sessions case is initiated with reference to the same F.I.R, under Secs. 307, 506(2), 143, 147, 148, etc., of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and Sec. 135(1) of the B.P. Act. It is also further directed by the impugned order that if the documents in question are not in the custody of the I.O., then he should avail the same from the concerned Police Stations and Hospitals before the next date of hearing and to provide the copies of such documents to the accused. It is further directed in the impugned order that pursuant to such production, the prosecution will be at liberty to recall and re-examine any witness in view of the documents as they may appear just and necessary to them irrespective of further examination-in-chief i.e. re-examination by the prosecution. It is further stated that in such a scenario, prosecution will be at liberty to conduct re-examination of such witness.
-
If we peruse Para 5 of the application Exh. 139, by which the accused have prayed for production of several documents, it becomes clear that practically some of the documents are already produced on record, but they are not legible inasmuch as the accused have specifically contended in such application that xerox copy of the letter addressed to Charge Officer is illegible, copy of Wardhi (disclosure) dated 10-10-2010 received from Sanjivani Hospital by the Vastrapur Police Station and communication pursuant to such disclosure regarding report by the Medical Officer are also illegible. Even statement of Jalubhai Ramjibhai Desai by A.S.I. Shri B.S. Valand, Vastrapur Police Station dated 13-10-2010 is also illegible.
-
In view of such illegible documents and in view of hiding of certain documents and statements by the I.O. while filing the charge-sheet, the accused have called for the copies of certain statements recorded by the I.O. viz., statement of Tejabhai dated 10-11-2011, Kaliben dated 10-11-2010, Bhavnaben Tejabhai and Shilpaben dated 25-10-2010, letter dated 14-10-2010 by the complainant to Satellite Police Station and letter by P.S.I. to the office of the Police Commissioner. A copy of remand application dated 19-10-2010 was also called for with copy of Entry No. 20 by Vastrapur Police Station, wherein it is stated that offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of Kalol Police Station, and therefore, papers are to be forwarded to Kalol Police Station, thereby what steps have been taken by Kalol Police Station. When Dr. Jagat Pandya at Exh. 53 being witness No. 8 has deposed about some X-ray of victim Manojbhai and when it was disclosed that the victim was treated at Sanjivani Hospital as well as Shalby Hospital, relevant X-ray plate and report were also called for. With reference to witness No. 13 at Exh. 77, again there is a reference of Citi-scan of victim Manojbhai, but when witness has failed to produce relevant treatment papers, Citi-scan report and other relevant papers are also called for. Considering details stated in the application of relevant medical papers of the victim are also called for with allegation that the accused are complaining right from the filing of the complaint against them that I.O. and certain witnesses are hiding certain facts with intention and some papers are not provided to the accused with charge-sheet which are otherwise very much necessary and material evidence to prove the truth on record.
-
The trial Court has considered the rival submissions, both on facts and on law point and by detailed order running into 12 pages, allowed the application as aforesaid. The prosecution has also filed a reply against the application under reference and trial Court has taken care of their defence also.
-
To avoid prejudice to the pending trial, though I have gone through the material on record, it would be appropriate to avoid discussion on factual details. However, if we peruse the impugned order, it becomes clear that the trial Court has in Para 26 onwards, given cogent reasons for allowing the application wherein it is categorically stated that the prosecution is duty bound to see...
To continue reading
Request your trial