Learned HCGP takes notice to Respondent No.1.

2. Notice to be issued to Respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

3. The petitioner/accused in SC No.62/2017 has made an application under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. furnishing the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., particularly the said statement was recorded by means of video graphic method by the jurisdictional Magistrate. It appears, along with the charge sheet, the said video graphed statement was not furnished to the accused. After the accused appeared before the Sessions Court, he made an application for furnishing of the said Compact Disc, under which Section 164 of Cr.P.C. statement of the victim was recorded. The learned Prosecutor before the Court below, has strenuously objected for granting of a copy of the videographic statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. to the accused.

4. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, rejected the said application mainly relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2006(3) SCC 771 in the case of Dinesh @ Budha Vs. State of Rajasthan and also on the apprehension that if a copy of the said Compact Disc is provided to the accused, he may tamper with the same or he may misuse the same, affecting the victim’s interest. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that, the victim is mentally retarded girl and her statement was recorded by taking the help of an expert and the same was also Video graphed.

5. Whether the above said grounds relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge are sufficient to deny a copy of the Compact Disc to the accused is the moot question, that required to be considered by this Court.

6. In the decision relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in Dinesh’s case cited supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has only taken care about nondisclosure of the name of the victim stating that, the name of the victim should not be depicted in any of the papers before the court particularly in the judgment of the court. Therefore, I do not know as to how the learned Sessions Judge wants to drive himself to reject the application on the basis of the above said dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein there is only a direction to the court not to disclose the name of the victim in the judgment or in any of the court papers so that, if any person takes a certified copy of the said order/judgment and he would come to know about the conduct of the victim etc., and it may affect her future prospectus. To avoid such unnecessary complications in future, such rider has been put by the Hon'ble Apex Court to all the judges and directed that extra care should be taken by the Judges in not depicting the name of the victim anywhere in the judgment or on any other papers or records of the court. Therefore, I do not understand as to how this judgment will come to the help of the learned Sessions Judge to reject the application filed under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in nature.

7. In this regard, at this stage, it is worth to refer here the provision of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:

“Sec 207-Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.

In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:

(i) the police report;

(ii) the first information report recorded under section 154;

(iii) the statements recorded under subsection

(3) of section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding there from any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under subsection (6) of section 173;

(iv) the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164;

(v) any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under subsection (5) of section 173:

Provided that the Magistrate may, after perusing any suc