The court affirmed the accused's right to summon evidence for their defense, highlighting the importance of fair trial principles in ensuring justice.

Judgment

Mr. N.S. Shekhawat, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to issue directions to the trial Court to summon the witness/concerned official of UIDAI, Regional Office, in view of the amendment to Section 33(1) of the Aadhar Act 2016 [made vide “the Aadhar & other laws (Amendment) Act, 2019], (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Aadhar Act’).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused in a case FIR No. 10/2018 under Sections 363, 366, 376 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the POCSO Act’). In the said case, the complainant/respondent No. 3 had taken a stand that she was minor, whereas, it was the consistent stand of the petitioner that Section 6 of the POCSO Act was not made out as the prosecutrix was not a minor girl and she had produced false record regarding her age. In order to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor girl, the prosecutrix alleged that her date of birth was 31.05.2001. To prove her birth certificate as well as the age, the prosecutrix examined PW10 Ram Kumar, Clerk, MC, Faridabad, who appeared alongwith the record of birth and death. In his testimony (Annexure P-1), he stated that the entry regarding the birth certificate of the prosecutrix was at Serial Number 1279 dated 31.05.2001, which was made on the basis of record of Life Line Nursing Home, Faridabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner cross-examined PW10 and it was revealed in the cross-examination that the name of prosecutrix was added to the record on 11.01.2017. Learned counsel also referred to the cross-examination of PW10 Ram Kumar, Clerk, wherein, he admitted the fact that the name of the prosecutrix was added in the record later on 11.01.2017 and the certificate Ex.PN was issued on 11.01.2017, after adding the name of the prosecutrix in the record. Learned counsel further submitted that Ram Kumar, Clerk MC, Faridabad was again called as defence witness and made his testimony (Annexure P-2) before the trial court. Even, he stated as follows:-

“The record of life line nursing home Faridabad on the basis of which this entry is shown to have been made is not in our record. There is no record of receipt of any application on the basis of which the name (prosecutrix) was inserted against the entry No. 1279 on 11.1.2017. There is no application on behalf of father and mother or any other relative of the prosecutrix to mention the name against the entry No. 1279. As per record no fee was deposited by anyone for issuing the birth certificate of entry No. 1279 dated 11.1.2017. There is no application on record for issuance of any birth certificate of entry no 1270 is on record. I can’t say on the basis of which this entry was made.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the prosecutrix wrongly claimed her age to be 31.05.2001 and no weightage could be attached on the certificate, which was sought to be placed on record by the prosecution. However, after some time, the petitioner was able to find the Aadhar Card of the prosecutrix, wherein, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was shown to be 01.01.1999. The petitioner also moved an application before the concerned Court to summon the Incharge/concerned official of UIDAI, Regional Office, so that Aadhar Card could be exhibited before the trial Court and same could be read in evidence.

4. The trial Court issued summons to the Incharge/concerned official of Regional Office, UIDAI and a mail was sent by the concerned official/incharge of UIDAI to the trial Court that in view of the provisions contained in the Aadhar Act, the information could be supplied pursuant to an order of a Court not inferior to that of Judge of the High Court and such order could be passed after affording the opportunity of hearing to UIDAI and the concerned Aadhar card holder. Learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of UIDAI