ORDER

Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2024 This Crl.M.C. has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short hereinafter) by the accused in S.C. No.1135/2021 on the files of Fast Track Special Court, Nadapuram, with prayer to quash Annexure A3 order, whereby the learned Special Judge dismissed CMP No.781/2023 in S.C.No.1135/2021.

2. In this matter, by filing a petition under Section

311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution sought to recall PW1, PW8, PW11 and PW12 and also to issue summons to CW3 and CW14. Further PW8 was directed to produce the laptop and pen drive in which the CCTV footage copied first and to send the same, along with DVR, DVD and CD produced by PW13 to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for expert opinion. The reason for seeking such a prayer has been summarised in paragraph 2 of Annexure A3 as under;

“2. The contentions in the petition, in brief, are as follows: On 18.08.2021, a complaint was lodged before the Valayam police station. After the crime was registered, the victim was referred to Government Taluk Hospital Nadapuram with a requisition from the concerned SHO. The duty doctor attached to Taluk Hospital examined the victim and noted the injuries found on his body. Dr.Prajitha conducted the examination, but instead of examining her, the Superintendent of Taluk Hospital Nadapuram was examined before the court as PW14. Therefore, Dr. Prajitha needs to be examined. To prove the presence of the victim at the accused's house, CCTV footage was copied to a pen drive, then to a laptop, and finally to a DVD . The investigating officer brought this on record, presenting the DVR and DVD in court. The technician from Binary Systems, Parakadavu, was examined as PW8, and Ext.P6 was marked. PW8 installed the CCTV in the accused's house, conducted periodic maintenance, and hence had a fiduciary relationship with the accused. However, the investigating officer failed to note the hash value at the time of CCTV seizure. The prosecution alleges that the victim visited the accused's house more than once on 15.08.2021. The image copied onto the DVD is said to contain only one visit, but there is time difference noted in the CCTV footage, suggesting editing and tampering in the DVD at the instance of the accused before seizure. PW8 lacks the qualifications to provide evidence on the authenticity of the image and CCTV. Before relaying the CCTV footage, the DVD must be displayed to the victim in open court, which requires the recall of PW1. During the examination of PW11, vital evidence was omitted, necessitating her recall. PW13 seized an audio CD containing telephonic conversations between the victim and his brother Abdul Vasid cited as CW3, after the alleged incident, which should be forwarded to the FSL according to the law. Hence, this petition.”

3. The petitioner herein filed an objection as stated in paragraph 3 of the order, which is extracted as under;

“3. The contentions in the counter statement submitted by the accused, in brief, are as follows: This petition has been filed to delay the pronouncement of judgment and thereby prevent the accused from returning to Qatar to do his business. The petition is deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law, especially considering it was filed when the final hearing is almost completed. Its purpose appears to be to fill gaps in the prosecution's case, and the reasons for the delay in filing the petition remain unexplained. The petition fails to provide strong and valid reasons to get it be allowed. In a petition filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., no direction to produce documents and send them for expert opinion can be made. The accused asserts that this petition is filed under the disguise of a denovo trial petition. PW8 was examined and marked Ext.P6, a certificate issued under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The prosecution is now attempting to discredit Ext.P6 by claiming that PW8 is not qualified to give evidence on