The court emphasized the importance of exercising the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. judiciously and ensuring that additional evidence is essential for a just decision.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 09.07.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani in FIR No.373 dated 20.12.2015 registered under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 120-B IPC at Police Station Civil Lines, Bhiwani.

2. Vide the aforesaid order, the application filed by the prosecution under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for placing on record certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') issued by PW-14 ASI Kapoor Singh has been allowed.

3. It has been contended by the prosecution that PW-14 ASI Kapoor Singh was earlier examined on 21.03.2017 and the certificate in question could not be placed on record through his statement. The case relates to circumstantial evidence wherein CCTV footage of the Hospital is necessary piece of evidence for which the witness has already tendered CD and the same has been exhibited as Ex.P-27. The CD being not a primary evidence under Section 62 of the Act and it being a secondary evidence, needs authentication by way of certification under Section 65-B(4) of the Act and, therefore, the certificate is a material piece of evidence which needs to be brought on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution cannot fill lacuna in the case at this stage, particularly when repeated applications under Section 311 Cr.P.C. were filed earlier. Firstly the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was filed by the prosecution for production of FSL report and the same was allowed by the trial Court and the FSL report came negative. The second application was filed by the prosecution for DNA profile and the same was allowed, but the petitioner has not laid any challenge to the said order. The third application was filed for production of some documents as additional evidence. The application was partly allowed vide order dated 17.08.2019, thereby summoning record of mobile phones mentioned in para no.3 of the application, summoning of record of FIR No.41 dated 09.02.2016 and Police Station, Civil Lines, Bhiwani as mentioned in para no.5 of the application. The application was partly rejected thereby declining the prayer for summoning of admission and discharge record of Sh. Sugreev from Medi Home Hospital, Bhiwani. Qua the rejection part of the application, CRM-M No.38273 of 2019 is pending in the High Court. Evidently, the petitioner has not challenged the part of order vide which the application was partly allowed in the aforesaid manner. The fourth application is the present application in which the certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Act is sought to be brought on record by way of further examination of PW-14 ASI Kapoor Singh.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the impugned order was passed on 09.07.2021 and the witness has been examined on 12.07.2021. Learned counsel placed reliance upon Crl. Appeal No.830 of 2013 (SLP (Crl.) No.2400 of 2011) titled 'Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another', decided on 04.07.2013 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his submissions.

6. At last, learned counsel further submitted that on 15.07.2021 itself, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in the Court for further investigation in the present case, but the order passed therein could not be ascertained by the petitioner due to paucity of time.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

8. Perusal of order dated 12.07.2021 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhiwani would show that PW-14 EASI Kapoor Singh has been examined after recalling, who has tendered certificate under Section 65-B of the Act as Ex.P-69. He has authenticated the certificate by deposing that the same carries his signatures. Opportunity was given to the defence counsel. Evidently, defence counsel has cross-examined the witness thereby acquiescing the tender made by the witness. In view of cro