The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No. 469 of 2006 An application under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. arising out of the order dated 24.06.2006 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh in S.T. Case No. 322 of 2005. Shiba Jena -------------- -versus- ..…. Petitioner State of Orissa …… Opposite Party ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner Mr. L. Mishra, Advocate : : For Opp. Party ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: HONOURABLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
Legal Reasoning
been served in the defence. It relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Benudhar Mohanty and Others vrs. State of Orissa: 1989 (2) OCR 52 and allowed the application holding that the documents were accepted subject to proof of the same being admitted in evidence. SUBMISSIONS 5. Mr. L. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Investigating Officer failed to collect or submit any injury report before filing the charge sheet. No due diligence was exercised in procuring these crucial documents. The xerox copies submitted by the prosecution are not equivalent to originals and should not have been accepted during the trial. Allowing the prosecution to introduce such documents through an interested witness in mid-trial is contrary to law and procedure. He has submitted that the Sessions Court lacks the authority to accept such documents. He has further submitted that the prosecution has examined six witnesses and there is no paper or any requisitions to the effect that the injured, the husband of the informant, was referred to S.C.B Medical College Hospital, Cuttack for better treatment, which was alleged by the Prosecution. And that on 10.04.2006 the injured witness produced original medical reports in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Athgarh directly for accepting the same in evidence, which violates the provision of law. The injured witness has no scope to produce the alleged documents in the continuance of trial in trial court and the learned CRLREV No. 469 of 2006 Page 3 of 6 trial court lacks jurisdiction to accept such documents produced by injured witness to admit into evidence during trial. He has further submitted that the medical reports so submitted/produced by the injured witness are not genuine and have been prepared and procured illegally in order to fill up the lacuna of the prosecution for the purpose of the case during the trial of the case which is the after thought plea. The makers of the documents are also not disclosed and as only the xerox copies of the documents had been seized, they should not have been accepted by the learned trial court. He has also submitted that since those documents had not been seized under the seizure list and did not form part of the charge sheet, the same could not have been accepted by the learned trial court. His further submission is that acceptance of these documents violate the provisions of Sections 207, 209 and 294 of the Cr.P.C. and will amount to allowing the prosecution to patch up the lacunae by bringing on record documents which were not there on the record when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decisions of this Court in Benudhar Mohanty and Others vrs. State of Orissa reported in (1989) 2 OCR 41, Arjun Kumar Pujhari vrs. State of Orissa reported in 66 (1988) C.L.T. 476, Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vrs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Others
Arguments
Mr. S.S. Mohapatra, A.S.C. Savitri Ratho, J. This application under Section 397 read with Section 401 JUDGMENT 30.05.2025 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.06.2006 passed in S.T. Case No. 322 of 2005 by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Athagarh, allowing the application of the prosecution and accepting the documents produced by the prosecution after trial against the petitioner under Section 307 of IPC had started. This case corresponds to G.R. Case No. 121 of 2004 arising out of Narasinghpur P.S. Case No. 77 of 2004. PROSECUTION CASE 2. The prosecution allegation in brief is that on 01.07.2004, the petitioner initially threatened the elder brother-in-law of the CRLREV No. 469 of 2006 Page 1 of 6 informant to take revenge against his brother with regard to the allegation of destruction of crops by allowing the cows for grazing. On 02.07.2004 at about 1.00 P.M., while Pitabas, husband of the informant was coming home along with Naba Nayak (P.W.4), Maguni Pradhan (P.W.6) and others noticed that the petitioner was quarrelling with Sankar Dalei (P.W.3). After that, the petitioner assaulted on the head of the husband of the informant by means of a Farsha and thereafter on his waist. As a result of the assault, he sustained bleeding injuries. The witnesses raised hulla, so the petitioner left the spot. Thereafter the injured was shifted to his home and then to area Hospital Narasinghpur for preliminary treatment and then referred to SCB Medical College Hospital where he was treated in the Neurosurgery Department in two phases. In course of treatment C.T. scan and ECO Imaging was conducted and he under went brain surgery or and then discharged. He was supplied with discharge certificate, C.T. Scan Report, ECO Imaging reports. 3. Copies of these documents were produced before the Court by the prosecution along with an application to be admitted in evidence. IMPUGNED ORDER 4. On 24.06.2006, the learned trial court after hearing the prosecution and the accused and going though the case diary rejected the submission of the petitioner that the documents were being filed to fill up the lacunae in the prosecution case because the documents were submitted to the trial court and did not form part of the case diary. It observed that copies of the documents had CRLREV No. 469 of 2006 Page 2 of 6