LexSHAMSHER SINGH VERMA versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 234
SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2015)
NOVEMBER 24, 2015
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.294 - Right of
c defence - Denial of - Allegation against the accused-
appellant that he molested a female child aged 9 years -
Complainant party and accused-appellant related to each
other-Application by accused-appellant for getting exhibited
the compact disc filed in defence and to get the same proved
D from Forensic Science Laboratory- In the application, it was
alleged that there was recording of conversation between
father of the victim and the son and the wife of the accused
regarding the property dispute - Said application rejected -
Held: The compact disc is a document - On document filed
E by the defence, endorsement of admission or denial by the
public prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to prove
the document if not admitted by the prosecution -
Courts
below erred in law in rejecting the application to play the
compact disc in question to enable the public prosecutor to
F admit or deny, and to get it sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, by the defence - Penal Code, 1860 - s.354 -
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2015 -
Evidence - Compact disc.
G
Allowing the appeal, the Court
·HELD: 1. The object of Section 294 CrPC is to
accelerate pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted
by the parties in recording the unnecessary evidence.
H Where genuineness of any document is admitted, or its
234
SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA v. STATE OF HARYANA
235
formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in A
evidence. The compact disc is a document. It is not
necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on
a document under sub-section (1) to Section 294 Cr.P.C.
personally from the accused or complainant or the
witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made B
by the counsel for defence, on the document filed by
the prosecution or on the application/report with which
same is filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294
CrPC. Similarly on a document filed by the defence,
endorsement of admission or denial by the public C
prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to prove
the document if not admitted by the prosecution. In case
it is admitted, it need not be formally proved, and can be
read in evidence. In a complaint case such an 0
endorsement can be made by the counsel for the
complainant in respect of document filed by the defence.
[Paras 11, 14] [240-B; 241-E-G]
2. As per order dated 21.2.2015 passed by the trial
court, all the prosecution witnesses, including the child E
victim, her mother, maternal grandmother and
complainant were examined. The father of the victim
appeared to have been discharged by the prosecution,
and the evidence was closed. From the copy of the
statement of accused recorded under Section 313
F
Cr.P.C.,
the accused has alleged that he has been
implicated due to property dispute. It is also stated that
some conversation is in possession of his son. From
the record it also reflected that the Registration Clerk, G
the Document Writer, the Clerk-cum-Cashier, State Bank
of Patiala, and the son of the appellant were examined
as defence witnesses and evidence in defence is in
progress. The courts below have erred in law in not
allowing the application ofthe,~efence to get played the H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A compact disc relating to conversation between father of
the victim and son an.d wife of the appellant regarding
alleged property dispute. The courts below have erred
in law in rejecting the application to play the compact
disc in question to enable the public prosecutor to admit
B or deny, and to get it sent to the Forensic Science
Laboratory, by the defence. The appellant is in jail and
there appears to be no intention on his part to
unnecessarily linger the trial, particularly when the
prosecution witnesses have been examined. {Para 15-
C 16] [241-H; 242-A-C, E-F]
R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1
SCC 471: 1973 (2) SCR 4; Ziyauddin
Barhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass
D
Mehra and others (1976) 2SCC17: 1975 (Supp)
SCR 281 - relied on.
Case Law Reference
1973 (2) SCR 4
E 1975 (Supp) SCR 281
relied on.
relied on.
Para 12
Para 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
Appeal No. 1525 of 2015
From the Judgment and Order dated 2Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.