O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. has been filed against Annexure-B order in C.M.P.No.743/2020 in S.C.No.1170/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kozhikode.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, C.M.P.No.743/2020 has been filed during the stage of defence evidence to summon the manager of the Matria Hospital, Calicut as a defence witness to prove certain facts. But the court below erroneously dismissed the application without understanding the perspectives of the defence evidence.

3. Heard both sides.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the above case was charge sheeted against the petitioner u/s.306 IPC. The victim committed suicide in the year 2014. It is contended that the prosecution allegation is that while deceased Vipina was residing with her parents in her father's house during 2012 she had an altercation with her father and left the father's house and started residing in a house said to be arranged by the petitioner/accused. That allegation is absolutely incorrect. The father of the victim was examined as PW1. The accused made enquiries and came to know that deceased started living separately from her father much prior to 28.11.2010 and after her divorce she had gone for consultation in the Cradle Hospital, now known as Matria Hospital and she was issued hospital card No.128. So her then address was furnished to the hospital authorities and that could be seen from the hospital records. So the petitioner wanted to issue summons to the Manager, Matria Hospital, to produce the records dated 28.11.2010 pertaining to the residential address of the patient by name Vipina S.

5. In the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the victim committed suicide in the year 2014 and accused wanted to prove the factum that the victim had lived in a house than that of PW1 even much before the date i.e. in 2012, as stated by PW1. The trial court was of the view that it is not tenable since the witness sought to be examined is a manger attached to the private hospital and the data, if any, so maintained cannot be attached with any authenticity so as to prove the residence of the victim in 2010. Even it is established that the victim had lived in a house than that of PW1, in the year 2010 that will not be sufficient enough to dislodge the case put forward by the prosecution. So the trial court was of the view that no purpose would be served by the examination of PW1 and it was filed only to protract the trial, as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor and hence the petition was dismissed.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner is facing trial on a charge under Section 306 IPC. His contention is that he has been falsely implicated at the instance of the father of the deceased, who had been examined as PW1. It is not clear from the impugned order about the evidence of PW1 with regard to the place of residence of the deceased during the time of incident or before that. It appears from Annexure-A copy of C.M.P.No.743/2020 that the petitioner wanted to establish that the deceased started living separately from the father much prior to 28.11.2010.

7. The learned counsel placed reliance on T. Nagappa v.

Y.R. Muralidhar [(2008) 5 SCC 633] wherein it has been held that nature of defence evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the court and it is the accused who knows how to prove his defence and the court, being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused is bonafide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material. Kalyani Bhaskar v. Sampoornam [(2007) 2 SCC 258] was also relied on wherein it has been held that 'fair trial' includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove his/her innocence, that adducing evidence in support of the defence is a valuable right and denial of that right means denial of fair trial and it is essential that rules of procedure designed to ensur