Only the prosecution can submit additional documents in a sessions trial; witnesses cannot independently introduce evidence, ensuring trial integrity.

ORDER :

1. Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 14.08.2023 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.96 of 2022 arising out of Crime No.71 of 2021, registered at Police Station – Mahila Thana, Indore under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC whereby, an application filed by the prosecutrix under Section 242 of Cr.P.C. has been allowed.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing the aforesaid trial under Sections 376 & 506 of IPC, which is at the stage of recording of evidence. During the proceedings, an application under Section 242 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the prosecutrix along with 43- 45 documents, contending that the police did not file the aforesaid documents due to some error on their part. The aforesaid application was opposed by the petitioner; however, the learned Judge of the trial Court, vide the impugned order dated 14.08.2023, has allowed the application, and the aforesaid documents have been directed to be taken on record with the observations that the petitioner would have the opportunity to rebut the same.

4. Shri S. K. Vyas, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application under Section 242 of Cr.P.C. in itself was not maintainable as the same is applicable in warrant cases and the learned Judge of the trial Court has erred in law invoking the aforesaid provision in a sessions trial. Senior counsel has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Single Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1064 deciding the same issue that, “Whether a witness appearing for the prosecution in a sessions trial can produce documents which were not part of the charge-sheet filed before the Court.” Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Shri Vyas has also submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the cases triable by Sessions Court are committed to the Sessions Court by the Judicial Magistrate, and the aforesaid procedure is provided only to ensure that once the charge-sheet is filed and the case is committed to the trial Court, no further documents are filed on record, otherwise it would lead to chaos in the Court as the witnesses would keep on filing the documents on record, which is not the intention of the legislature.

6. Shri Vyas, learned senior counsel has also submitted that although this Court in the case of Smt. Sarla Shrivastava Vs. State of M.P. &Ors. passed in Criminal Revision No.1388 of 2024 dated 12.07.2024, has also allowed such an application bringing additional documents on record, but in the said case also, the application was filed by the prosecution and not by the witness, and the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jabalpur in the case of Manoj Patel Vs. State of M.P. in M.Cr.C. No.4648 of 2024 dated 13.02.2024, has also allowed such an application, but the aforesaid case was also related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in which procedure prescribed by Cr.P.C. for trial of warrant cases by Magistrate was applicable, which has also been noted by the Division Bench in para 5 of the said judgement. Thus, it is submitted that both the aforesaid decisions would also be of no avail to the respondent.

7. Shri Amar Singh Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the prosecutrix, on the other hand, has submitted that although the application was filed by the prosecutrix herself, however, the same was also supported by the prosecutor before the trial Court, which is also reflected in the impugned order and thus, it is submitted that the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar (supra) is distinguishable. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon Section 91 and 230 of Cr.P.C.

8. Shri Rathore, cou