JUDGMENT

L. MOHAPATRA, J. — The petitioner in this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed for a direction to the trial Court to delete and ignore the subsequent corrections made in the deposition of P.W.2 by the ex-Presiding Officer in S.T. Case No.2/23 of 2002 pending in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda.

2. The petitioner and some other accused persons are facing trial for commission of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code apart from the other offences. The case of the prose¬cution as revealed in the F.I.R. is that on 13.1.1996 at about 7 P.M. the deceased having decided to have holy snana during ‘Makar’ left her husband in the house of one Golekha Bhola and while coming she heard the accused persons discussing and threa¬tening to kill her. The informant also having heard the said discussion advised the deceased to go back to the house of Gole¬hak Bhola. At that point of time accused Binod Bhola fired by means of gun at the deceased which hit the deceased near waist and she fell down. Thereafter she was shifted to Varandah to Golekha Bhola and later on she died.

3. During trial one Sukanti Bhola shown as an eye-witness was examined as P.W.2. In the examination-in-chief she stated that she and his sister-in-law Mani Bhola were sleeping inside the house and they heard accused Kalu Bhola asking the co-accused Bina to fire at the deceased. Later on the Presiding Officer corrected the same and it was recorded to the effect that when the said witness and her sister-in-law Mani Bhola were standing in front of the house, they heard Kalu Bhola asking Bina to fire at the deceased.

4. Shri Indrajit Ray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that after the deposition was recorded the signature of the witness was taken. The Presiding Officer also signed the deposition and certificate was given to the effect that the deposition had been typed to his dictation in open Court and had been corrected by him. After giving such a certificate there was no scope for the Presiding Officer to make any correction in the deposition of P.W.2. It was further con¬tended that since the corrections were made behind back of the petitioner, there was no opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine the witness in that regard. It is further submitted that if the uncorrected original deposition is taken into considera¬tion, P.W.2 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence, but if the corrections are allowed P.W.2 becomes an eye-witness to the occurrence and therefore any such correction made by the Presiding Officer was without jurisdiction, intentional and the same has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.

5. It appears from the order-sheet that an objection was also taken before the trial Court and report was called for from the previous Presiding Officer who had made corrections. But till 19.12.2003 the ex-Presiding Officer had not given any report. When the matter was brought to the notice of this Court in CRLMC No. 2970 of 2003 disposed of on 5.2.2004, this Court directed the said Presiding Officer to look into the records and submit a report. Pursuant to the direction of the Court in the aforesaid case, ex-Presiding Officer submitted a report on 23.2.2004. In the said report, he has stated that he recorded the deposition of P.W.2 in open Court and signed the same. Signature of the witness was also taken in the deposition. Later on same day while going through the deposition of P.W. 2 as well as depositions of P.Ws. 3 to 5 which were also recorded on the very same day, he detected some typographical errors in the deposition of P.W. 2 and corrected the same with ini¬tial. By the time he corrected the mistakes certified copy of the same had already been obtained without his notice. He has further stated that corrections made in the deposition of P.W.2 were neither intentional nor deliberate and it was not with any ul¬terior motive.

6. Learned counsel for the