Sachin Jindal v. State

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 18th, 2019 'ga'

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.REV.P. 960/2019, CRL.M.A. 35619/2019 (stay) and CRL.M.A. 35620/2019 (exemption) Judgment Reserved : 12.09.2019 Date of Decision : 18.09.2019 IN THE MATTER OF SACHIN JINDAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Harshit Jain, Adv. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for State. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI 1. By this revision petition, petitioner assails the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by Additional Session Judge in SC No. 58093/2016 arising out of FIR No. 278/2014 registered under Sections 302/370/374/34 IPC at P.S. Model Town, whereby his prayer seeking a copy of video cassette has been rejected. 2. In the present case, the prosecution had examined Mr. Naresh Kumar Rana as PW3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has handed over a copy of the testimony of the said witness, which is taken on record. PW3 is a Videographer by profession. He had done the videography in respect of the post-mortem examination conducted on the body of the deceased. The video cassette containing the above videography was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/1. During his deposition, the aforementioned video cassette was taken out from the judicial file and shown to the witness, who identified the same as the cassette which was prepared by him and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/1. The said cassette was exhibited as Ex. P1. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall Dr. M.K. Wahi (PW13) and Dr. Mohit Gupta (PW27), who conducted the Post-Mortem, which was allowed vide order dated 01.07.2019. The petitioner also moved an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 173 and 207 Cr.P.C., whereby it was prayed that a copy of the aforementioned video cassette be supplied to him as the same would be just and necessary for the cross-examination of the witnesses who have been recalled. The said application, however, came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.09.2019 on the ground that when the said video cassette was exhibited the witness was not cross- examined. It was also observed that no objection was raised either at the stage of compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. or when the said cassette was proved by the concerned witness. 4. Fair and just investigation is the hallmark of any investigation. In Manu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as (2010) 6 SCC 1, it was held as under :- "203. It is pertinent to note here that one of the established canons of just, fair and transparent investigation is the right of defence of an accused. An accused may be entitled to ask for certain documents during the course of enquiry/trial by the court. Let us examine the extent of this right of an accused in light of the statutory provisions and the manner in which the law has developed under the criminal jurisprudence. xxx 206. Section 173 commands the investigating agency to complete the investigation expeditiously without unnecessary delay and when such an investigation is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offence on a police report the details in the form as may be prescribed by the State Government and provide the information required under this section. 207. The provisions of Section 173(5) contemplate and make it obligatory upon the investigating officer where the provisions of Section 170 apply to forward to the Magistrate along with his report, all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation in terms of Section 170(2) of the Code. During investigation the statement recorded under Section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as witnesses shall also be sent to the Magistrate. Some element of discretion is vested with the police officer under Section 173(6): where he is of the opinion that any such state