The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of allowing documents to be placed on record during cross-examination to test the veracity of the witness and the need for trial courts to follow a specific procedure when objections are raised regarding the admissibility of evidence.

1. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 27.10.2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch in the criminal trial entitled State vs. Molvi Allah Ditta and ors, whereby the learned Judge has disallowed the petitioner’s application seeking to place on record two admitted documents to be used during cross examination of the witness and exhibited in evidence.

2. The said order reads as under :-

“From the perusal of the statement of PW Mohd Sadiq he has admitted during his cross-examination that he has written these two applications and admitted his signatures on these two applications. The third application on which the case is registered against the accused persons is annexed with the challan file. Counsel for the defenced has simply mentioned in his application only for cross-examination the PW Mohd Sadiq who is the complainant in the case about the writing of these two applications and the defence counsel has not submitted in his application that firstly he be permitted to annexed these two applications in the record of the challan and then he allowed to cross-examine the witness. The statement of the said PW is deferred on the last date of hearing in view of the filing of the instant application by the counsel for the defence.

In view of the above mentioned facts and reasons the counsel for the defence is permitted to cross-examine the PW Mojhd. Sadiq on these two applications also on their own as he has not prayed for annexing these applications with the main challan. So the applications annexed with the instant application shall not be treated as record of the challan file.”

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner along with his five family members has been lodged in District Jail, Poonch for commission of offences under Section 302 RPC. On 19.09.2017, the case came up before the Trial Court for cross-examination of complainant prosecution witness No.1. During the course of cross-examination counsel for the petitioner introduced two documents in the form of written complaints in original that the complainant had made to the police qua the occurrence beside the complainant upon which an FIR was lodged. It is submitted that in the wake of admission of the documents/complaints as having been signed and presented by the witness (complainant) to the police, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral submission before the Court seeking leave to place the documents on record. However, learned Judge declined to entertain the oral prayer and an application was moved. Thereafter, the further cross-examination of the witness was deferred and the public prosecutor was asked to file objections to the application seeking placement of documents on file. It is further stated that on 27.10.2017, the said application came to be disposed of by allowing cross examination of the witness qua the documents in question, but without permitting them to be placed on record as part of the case file.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that order impugned 27.10.2017, amounts to preventing the petitioner and five other persons from raising their legally available defense in a serious charge and grave prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners and co-accused by disallowing the original documents which constitute a concrete documentary evidence of the falsity case and their use during cross-examination of the witness who would not be available to be recalled under the provisions of the criminal procedure code.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Bipin Shantital Panchal vs. State of Gujarat, 2001 AIR (SC) 1158 and decision of Delhi High Court in case titled Vidhu Sethi vs. State and anr., Crl. Rev. P. No. 446/2011 ( decided on 19th February, 2013).

6. I have considered the contentions. From the perusal of order of court below it is evident that petitioner