CRR Nos.398, 399 & 400 of 2013 -:1:-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

Date of Decision: May 02, 2013

1.

CRR No. 398 of 2013 (O&M)

Laddi

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

2.

CRR No. 399 of 2013 (O&M)

Laddi

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

3.

CRR No. 400 of 2013 (O&M)

Laddi

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

1)

Whether Reporters of the Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2)

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes

3)

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

Present:

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate,

for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sandeep S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. D.R.Singla, Advocate,

for the complainant.

Paramjeet Singh, J.

By this common order, Criminal Revision Petitions viz. CRR

CRR Nos.398, 399 & 400 of 2013 -:2:-

No. 398 of 2013, CRR No. 399 of 2013 and CRR No. 400 of 2013 are

being decided together as the same arise out of FIR No. 94, dated

17.08.2012, registered at Police Station Guhla, District Kaithal.

CRR No. 398 of 2013 has been filed against order dated

16.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal,

whereby an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) for re-examination of the

prosecutrix has been dismissed.

CRR No. 400 of 2013 has been filed against order dated

16.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal,

whereby application for taking the voice sample of the prosecutrix has

been declined.

CRR No. 399 of 2013 has been filed against order dated

16.01.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal

whereby application for sending voice sample of the prosecutrix along

with CD for testing has been declined.

Brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 94 dated 17.08.2012,

under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police

Station Guhla, District Kaithal against the petitioner. It is alleged in the

FIR that on 12.08.2012 the petitioner committed rape upon the prosecutrix

which has been strongly denied. It is alleged that on 11.08.2012 there was

a conversation between the prosecutrix and the accused-petitioner from a

Cell Phone No. 96715-12799 of the accused-petitioner on the Cell Phone

being used by the prosecutrix Nos. 99928-56045 and 82952-65454. The

CRR Nos.398, 399 & 400 of 2013 -:3:-

Cell Phone No. 96715-12799 is in the name of Sh. Baldev Singh, brother

of the accused-petitioner in which there is facility of recording the

conversation. From the Cell Phones, there was a conversation between the

accused and the prosecutrix and this fact was brought to the notice of the

accused by Sh. Baldev Singh on 04.01.2013. Earlier it was not in the

knowledge of the accused-petitioner. From the conversation, the petitioner

wants to prove that there was a love affair between the prosecutrix and the

accused. The said conversation has been converted into a CD. With a

purpose to confront the prosecutrix with her voice in CD, it is essential

that the prosecutrix be re-examined, so that she may be confronted with the

conversation recorded in the CD.

In the applications, it is also prayed that voice sample of the

prosecutrix be taken and the same be got compared from the Forensic

Science Lab. All the three applications have been dismissed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal vide separate orders dated 16.01.2013,

impugned in three separate criminal revisions.

Learned State counsel has opposed the said applications

primarily on the ground that these are not maintainable. Applications are

vague and devoid of merits. Even if there is conversation betw