Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Sahoo, J.
Siddhachit Roy @ Siddhachit Roy – Appellant
Versus
Rabindra Kumar Mallick – Respondent
Crl.Rev No. 40 of 2022
Decided On : 06-09-2022
N.I. Act - Revision petition challenging the order rejecting correction of recorded evidence - Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Section 278 of Cr.P.C., Section 315 of Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 278 of Cr.P.C. which requires the deposition to be read over to the witness and the witness to have an opportunity to correct any errors. The court emphasized that the purpose of reading over the deposition is to obtain an accurate record and not to permit a witness to change his story. The court also highlighted the provisions of Section 315 of Cr.P.C. which allows the accused to give evidence in disproof of the charges. The decision was based on the finding that the petitioner had the opportunity to review and correct the evidence but failed to raise any objections at that time.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the rejection of the correction of recorded evidence in a case under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The petitioner had examined himself as a witness and later sought to correct the recorded evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had the opportunity to review and correct the evidence during the recording process but failed to raise any objections at that time. The court rejected the petition for correction of the evidence, emphasizing that the purpose of reading over the deposition is to obtain an accurate record and not to permit a witness to change his story.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be allowed to correct the recorded evidence after the completion of his deposition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had the opportunity to review and correct the evidence during the recording process but failed to raise any objections at that time. The court emphasized that the purpose of reading over the deposition is to obtain an accurate record and not to permit a witness to change his story.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was disposed of, and the court rejected the petition for correction of the evidence.
JUDGMENT
ORDER
1. This matter arrangement (video n up through Hybrid zing/physical mode).
2. Heard Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The petitione oy @ Suddhachit Roy has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Anandapur in 1.C.C. Case No.165 of 2013 in rejecting the petition filed by the learned counsel for the accused (petitioner) for correcting the recording of the petitioner's evidence who was examined as D.W.1.
4. The petitioner is facing trial for commission of an offence under section 138 of the N.I. Act and after the closure of the evidence from the side of the complainant and recording of the accused statement, the petitioner examined himself as D.W.1. In fact, he filed the evidence affidavit whereafter he was examined further by his own counsel in examination in-chief and then he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party. After the cross-examination was over, it seems that the evidence was read over to the petitioner and explained and thereafter he signed the deposition sheet on the petiti each page on 08.12.2021. The counsel for oner filed a petition on 15.12.2021 in the trial Court indicating therei to him by the counse answers were given b recorded I by the Court made to correct thererefore, a prayer f the evidence. ome questions were put omplainant and correct same has been wrongly recorded by the Court and therefore, a prayer was made to correct the recording of the evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant filed objection to such petition.
6. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court has been pleased to hold that after recording of evidence, the same was read over and explained to D.W.1 and after finding it to be true and correct, he has put his signature and therefore, the prayer to make changes in the evidence cannot be done without bringing D.W.1 (petitioner) to the dock and accordingly, the petition was rejected.
7. Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that after receipt of the certified copy of the deposition, it came to the notice of the learned counsel for the accused (petitioner) about the wrong recording made by the Court and immediately the petition was filed for correcting the same. It is submitted that the petitioner is a graduate and it was his duty to immediately point out the same to the learned trial Court while putting his signature but he could not verify the evidence thoroughly when he put his signature and for his laches, he should not be deprived of the opportunity in bringing it to the notice of the Court regarding wrong recording of his evidence which has far reaching consequences.
8. Section 278 of Cr.P.C. deals with procedure in regard to the evidence when it is completed and it states, inter alia, that as the evidence of each witness taken under section 275 or section 276 of Cr.P.C. is completed, it shall be read over to him in the presence of the accused, if in attendance, or of his pleader, if he appears by pleader, and shall, if necessary, be corrected and it is further provided that if the witness denies the correctness of any part of the evidence when the same is read over to him, the Magistrate or Presiding Officer may, instead of correcting the evidence, make a memorandum thereon of the objection made to it by the witness and shall add such remarks as he thinks necessary. It is further provided that if the record of the evidence is in a language different from that in which it has been given and the witness does not understand that language, the record shall be interpreted to him in the language in which it was given, or in a language which he understands
9. Sub-section (3) of section 278 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted in this case since the petitioner is a graduate and he gave the evidence affidavit in English and after he deposed, his deposition was also recorded in English and he went through the same and
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of reading over the deposition is to obtain an accurate record and not to permit a witness to change his story.
The importance of accurate evidence recording and the limited scope for correction after the witness has signed the deposition sheet.
Entire deposition of a witness in an earlier proceeding cannot be marked in a subsequent proceeding
Misreading of evidence by trial and appellate Courts constitutes a manifest illegality, justifying the High Court's intervention in revisional jurisdiction.
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial, and courts must allow such opportunities unless legally justified otherwise.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
