Documents cannot be admitted before framing of charges unless their genuineness is established; Section 294 Cr.P.C. allows for admission/denial of evidence post-charge framing.

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. A Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/accused for setting aside/modification of the Order dated 29.05.2023 vide which the learned ASJ has dismissed his Application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. for admission and denial of the document/pen drivecontaining the conversations between the prosecutrix and the brother of the accused.

2. The petitioner has submitted that on the statement of the prosecutrix, FIR No.604/2022, under Section 376 of IPC, at P.S. Keshavpuram, has been registered against him. It is claimed that before the registration of the FIR,there have been conversations between the prosecutrix and his brother as well as cousin, wherein she has made demands for money from his brother as well as the cousin for not getting this aforesaid false case registered against the petitioner. These conversations were recorded by his brother and cousin in their respective mobile phones and now stored in a pen drive, are sought to be produced before the learned Court to confront the prosecutrix during the trial. It is asserted that it is a material piece of admissible evidence belying the entire case of the prosecution.

3. The petitioner, therefore, moved an Application under Section 294 Cr.P.C. for admission/denial of the contents stored in the pen drive to expose the truth of the matter. However, his Application has been dismissed vide impugned Order dated 25.09.2023. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present petition has been filed.

4. The grounds on which the Order has been assailed are that the information contained in the pen drive is a document as defined under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed on the case of P. Gopal Krishanan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala AIR 2020 SC 1 wherein it has been held that the video footage/clipping is a document in terms of Section 2(1)(t) of Information Technology Act. The petitioner has claimed that bringing on record of this pen drive is absolutely essential to bring out the truth. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned Order be set aside and the pen drive containing conversations recorded on the mobile phone of the brother and cousin of the accused, be taken on record and the prosecution may be asked to admit or deny the contents of the pen drive.

5. The learned Prosecutor has opposed the Application on the ground that this is not the stage of taking on record the documents of the accused and therefore, the petitioner cannot seek the admission/denial of the pen drive and the same has been rightly denied by the learned ASJ.

6. Submissions Heard and the record perused.

7. To appreciate the contentions of the accused one may reiterate the fundamental principles which underline any criminal trial. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the absolute burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution.

8. In this context, it is pertinent to appreciate that the prosecution is required to produce the entire evidence including statements, documents and objects in the Chargesheet, to establish the allegations of commission of crime against the accused.

9. When the prosecution opens the case against the accused under Section 226 of Cr.P.C. the duty of the court at that stage is culled out from the conjoint reading of sections 227 & 228 of the Cr.P.C.and has also been observed by the Supreme Court in State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh , AIR 1977 SC 2018 , that the Court has to pass an Order either under section 227 or section 228 Cr.P.C., in the manner that if there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing, as per section 227; on the other hand, if the Judge is of the opinion that there is a ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then“he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused”, as provided in Section 228 Cr.P.C. To ascertain the same, the court is req