Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 5227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
..... – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI – Respondent
CRL.REV.P. 1370/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shekhar Nanavaty
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Pant, Ms. Puja Mann, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Anand, Mr. Vikas Kumar Bhardwaj, Mr. Harshit Anand
Trial Court misinterpreted previous order; electronic evidence should be assessed without mandatory FSL examination.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 328, 342, 363, 366, 368, 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 6, 12 - Revision petition against order of Trial Court permitting mobile phone seizure for forensic examination - The High Court found the Trial Court's interpretation of a previous order erroneous, indicating that no mandatory direction had been issued for sending the mobile phone for examination; thus, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for compliance with the prior order. (Paras 8, 14)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65A, 65B - Admissibility of electronic records and discretion of the judge as to admissibility. The earlier order allowed the accused to lead evidence in defense without necessitating the mobile phone's forensic examination. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge a Trial Court order directing the examination of the accused's mobile phone found to be an erroneous interpretation of previous guidance allowing the accused to present defense evidence.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the need to accurately interpret earlier judgments, ensuring defense rights without unnecessary prejudice.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court correctly understood the previous order regarding the mobile phone's examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court emphasized the importance of precise adherence to procedural interpretations of earlier decisions concerning the admissibility of electronic records.
Result: The impugned order is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision petition against the trial court's order. (Para 1) |
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
1. The petitioner, by way of this revision petition, seeks setting aside of the order dated 25.09.2024 [hereafter „impugned order‟] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC)(POCSO) - 02, Dwarka Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in case arising out of FIR No. 299/2013, registered on 21.11.2013 at Police Station Baba Haridass Nagar, Delhi for commission of offence punishable under Sections 328 /342/363/366/368/376 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860 CRL.REV.P. 1370/2024 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed [hereafter „IPC‟] and Sections 6 /12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act , 2012 [hereafter „POCSO Act‟].
2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner-prosecutrix is that on her complaint, the present FIR was registered against the accused/respondent for offences involving sexual assault, abduction, and other serious charges. Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the trial commenced. On 23.02.2024, more than eight months after the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused moved an application before the learned Trial Court seeking to send his mobile phone to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination, purportedly to verify the authenticity of certain messages allegedly sent by the prosecutrix to him during the relevant period.
3. The learned Trial Court, vide order dated 23.02.2024, dismissed the said application on the ground that the trial had already been pending for an inordinate length of time and that the application appeared to be a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings. Aggrieved thereby, the accused approached this Court by way of Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2024. The Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 08.08.2024, permitted the accused to lead defence evidence and made certain observations in relation to the request for sending the mobile phone to the FSL. The order of the learned Trial Court, in simply dismissing the application, was found erroneous, and the matter was disposed of by granting liberty to the accused to lead defence evidence.
CRL.REV.P. 1370/2024 Page 2 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed
4. Subsequently, the learned Trial Court passed the impugned order dated 25.09.2024, directing the SHO to seize and seal the mobile phone of the accused and send it to the FSL for examination, holding that such a course was mandated by the order of this Court. In compliance, the accused‟s mobile phone was seized and deposited at FSL Rohini on 04.10.2024. The FSL report is still awaited.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-prosecutrix submits that the learned Trial Court has misinterpreted the order of this Court dated 08.08.2024 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 452/2024. It is urged that paragraphs 6 and 8 of the said order clearly reflect that this Court had declined to direct the sending of the mobile phone for FSL examination, and therefore the impugned order is contrary to the directions actually issued. It is further argued that the case has been pending since 2014; the prosecution concluded its evidence in 2023; and at no point during the preceding 11 years did the accused express any intent to send his mobile phone to the FSL or make it part of the chargesheet during investigation. It is contended that the accused, being a terminated police official, is well-versed with procedural loopholes and is attempting to protract the trial.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-accused submits that the intention of this Court in its order dated 08.08.2024 was to allow the accused to lead evidence in his defence concerning the electronic record, i.e. the messages allegedly exchanged between him and the prosecutrix, and that the genuineness of such messages can only be established through forensic CRL.REV.P. 1370/2024 Page 3 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed exami
