Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod @ Vinod Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr.M.P. No.1023 of 2025
Decided on : 06-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
The court emphasized the right to present electronic evidence under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., highlighting the necessity of compliance with the Evidence Act when genuineness is disputed.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 294 - Electronic evidence - The court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge denying the playing of a pen drive containing video footage, emphasizing the necessity of allowing such evidence to expedite trial proceedings. (Paras 2, 4, 9, 10)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 62 and 63 - The court reiterated that electronic records must comply with specific provisions for admissibility, particularly when genuineness is disputed. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an accused in Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017, sought to play a pen drive containing witness testimony to support his defense, which was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Findings of Court:
The court found the denial of the petitioner's request to play the pen drive as a grave illegality and emphasized the importance of allowing such evidence for a fair trial.
Issues: The main issues included whether the court erred in denying the playing of the pen drive and the implications of Sections 62 and 63 of the Evidence Act regarding electronic evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge's refusal to allow the playing of the pen drive was legally unsustainable, as it hindered the accused's right to present evidence in his defense.
Result: The order dated 27.03.2025 is quashed and set aside.
JUDGMENT :
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. for marking the document exhibit after playing the pen drive contained video footage in the Court, has been disposed of by the court concerned.
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, who is an accused person of the said Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017, filed a petition under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the pen drive containing the video footage of the statement of the witness – Amar Singh be firstly permitted to be played in the court to enable the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to admit or deny the same and further to mark the Pen Drive without formal proof of the same and also a prayer was made that the voice of Amar Singh may be ordered to be taken by the experts of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi to get the same matched with the recorded statement. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad permitted the petitioner to follow the provisions of Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and ordered that only upon complying with the provisions of said section, the Pen Drive can be marked exhibit and treated as electronic evidence to prove the case in his defence and by thus observing, disposed of the said petition filed by the petitioner under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 15 SCC 485 and submits that therein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India taking into consideration the scheme of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. when the accused of that case intended to bring on record a compact disc in his defence with the aid of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C., held that the compact disc is a document in terms of the Section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and further held as under in paragraph-16:-
“16. We are not inclined to go into the truthfulness of the conversation sought to be proved by the defence but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we are of the view that the courts below have erred in law in not allowing the application of the defence to get played the compact disc relating to conversation between father of the victim and son and wife of the appellant regarding alleged property dispute. In our opinion, 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 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.” (Emphasis supplied)
and held that learned court below have erred in law in not allowing the application of the defence to get played the compact disc relating to conversation which was relevant to the facts of that case and submits that in this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad failed to properly appreciate the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (supra) and has erroneously disposed of the petition of the petitioner by depriving the petitioner to play the pen drive, the contents of which was relevant to the facts of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by petitioner in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.
5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer, as prayed fo
