SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 19218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 19.09.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.21486 of 2022

1. Krishnamurthy

2. Venkatesan 3. Govindaraj

4. Jayaprakash Narayana ... Petitioners Vs The State rep.by:

The Inspector of Police (Crime), H-4, Korukupet Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the order passed by the learned XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in petition filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent in Crl.M.P.6089 of 2022 in S.C.No.75 of 2020, dated 12.08.2022.

For Petitioners : Mr.F.Wellington For Respondent : Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in petition filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the respondent in Crl.M.P.6089 of 2022 in S.C.No.75 of 2020, dated 12.08.2022.

2. The petitioners are accused in S.C.No75 of 2020 on the file of the XXIII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. After completion of arguments, the respondent filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall P.W.11, who deposed in her chief examination that she copied the CCTV footage in pen drive and in her cross examination by the accused 2 to 4, she deposed that she produced the pen drive before the Trial Court. P.W.8 who is alleged to have copied the CCTV footage, has clearly deposed in his chief examination that he gave the CCTV footage in pen drive and in cross examination, he categorically deposed that he gave it only in pen drive and not in CD. He further submitted that neither CD nor pen drive was produced before the Trial Court in Form No.95.

3. On a perusal of the records, it reveals that, while examination of P.W.11, the Investigating Officer, deposed about CCTV footage in the form of pen drive and thereafter, the above CCTV footage was reproduced in the CD and the same was also produced in Form No.95. However, due to over- sight by the prosecution, the said CD is not marked. Therefore, the CD was produced Form No.95 before the Trial Court. However, it was not marked. All the witnesses stated that the CCTV footage had been copied in the pen drive and handed over to the Investigating Officer. Therefore, this Court is inclined to modify the order passed by the Trial Court that instead of CD, P.W.11 shall be recalled to adduce evidence recorded in the pen drive and also produce Certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

4. With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that the Trial Court must ensure that the pen drive be produced in Form No.95 before recalling P.W.11.

19.09.2022 Index:Yes/no Speaking/non speaking order kv G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J, kv To

1. The Inspector of Police (Crime), H-4, Korukupet Police Station, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.21486 of 2022

19.09.2022

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top