IMPORTANT POINTS
Compact disc is a document in terms of section 3 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Application u/s 294 CrPC to play a CD in court to enable the PP to admit or deny the contents should be allowed.

JUDGMENT

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

This appeal is directed against order dated 25.8.2015, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby said Court has affirmed the order dated 21.2.2015, passed by the Special Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014, and rejected the application of the accused for getting exhibited the compact disc, filed in defence and to get the same proved from Forensic Science Laboratory.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.

3. Briefly stated, a report was lodged against the appellant (accused) on 25.10.2013 at Police Station, Civil Lines, Kaithal, registered as FIR No. 232 in respect of offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2015 (POCSO) in which complainant Munish Verma alleged that his minor niece was molested by the appellant. It appears that after investigation, a charge sheet is filed against the appellant, on the basis of which Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014 was registered. Special Judge, Kaithal, after hearing the parties, on 28.3.2014 framed charge in respect of offences punishable under Sections 354A and 376 IPC and also in respect of offence punishable under Sections 4/12 of POCSO. Admittedly prosecution witnesses have been examined in said case, whereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”). In defence the accused has examined four witnesses, and an application purported to have been moved under Section 294 CrPC filed before the trial court with following prayer: -

“In view of the submissions made above it is therefore prayed that the said gadgets may be got operated initially in the court for preserving a copy of the text contained therein for further communication to F.S.L. for establishing their authenticity. It is further prayed that the voice of Sandeep Verma may kindly be ordered to be taken by the experts at FSL to be further got matched with the recorded voice above mentioned.”

4. In said application dated 19.2.2015, it is alleged that there is recording of conversation between Sandeep Verma (father of the victim) and Saurabh (son of the accused) and Meena Kumari (wife of the accused). The application appears to have been opposed by the prosecution. Consequently, the trial court rejected the same vide order dated 21.2.2015 and the same was affirmed, vide impugned order passed by the High Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the accused has a right to adduce the evidence in defence and the courts below have erred in law in denying the right of defence.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the State contended that it is a case of sexual abuse of a female child aged nine years by his uncle, and the accused/appellant is trying to linger the trial.

7. In reply to this, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that since the accused/appellant is in jail, as such, there is no question on his part to protract the trial. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was initially detained on 24.10.2013 illegally by the police at the instance of the complainant, to settle the property dispute with the complainant and his brother. On this Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1888 of 2013 was filed before the High Court for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. It is further pointed out that the High Court, vide its order dated 25.10.2013, appointed Warrant Officer, and the appellant was released on 25.10.2013 at 10.25 p.m. Immediately thereafter FIR No. 232 dated 25.10.2013 was registered at 10.35 p.m. regarding alleged molestation on the basis of which Sessions Case is proceeding. On behalf of the appellant it is also submitted that appellant’s wife Meena is sister of Munish Verma (complainant) and Sandeep Verma (father of the victim), and there is property dispute betwee