The petition prayed for a videographed Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement to be played in court. The court held that the transcription is sufficient for cross-examination and that playing the video is not a substantive requirement for impeachment of a witness.
The prayer that the compact disc be played in court is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUIATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3474/20 18
Ram Sharan @ Pappuram S/o Mohar Singh B/c Gurjar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner@) : . M.kk yap41 Fypta
A% 3 %.% I :j L$ 3 >$+''%?
For espondent(s)..-4% .# -d $- ?, -+ ~Mfi Rrakash Thak'uciya, k k &- ...a PP for State
r..., &' "' 3 # 2$!.k
,'., "A., %j'" " fk * ,;f-"->
d$, $" t+@:@ ,&2?
HON'BE .,y-Y MR. JUSTICE KANWAUIT SINGH AELCLWWALIA
p->$& f "-"' " 51% LP 4
f:991fnd
..s.$ Order + .F 3z+z
05/07/2018
Present Section 482 Cr, P. C,
praying that statement of the
prosecutrix was recorded
under be
="A =, y"".,* ., .:,,li"s-ix^Ci".\i- Xr* .%,* "'"' petitioner on 29.4.201@~p~~~~;aJb:.~uu$f T* 5 L&i?.,QEy committed a forcible % - "$vl rape with her.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein she had given a contrary version. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Gr.P.C, was videographed. Compact Disc wherein videographing was recorded was not provided to the petitioner. It is further prayed that in court prosecutrix has resiled
+'
her statement from the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the compact disc is required to be played in Court.
At the time of commitment of chargesheet, petitioner never prayed that copy of compact disc be provided to him. He waived his right to seek copy of compact disc.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if due to oversight the petitioner had not prayed at the time of below now copy of compact denied the 521 contends right of the accused to havgfaktrial shall ",?p., in case copy of compact disc is not
So far this pray s accepted and the learned Public Pros ct the Investigating Officer concerned pact disc to the petitioner.
However, sec disc be played in Court is concerned, d. Transcription of has already been tatement of any witness recorded u ot a substantive "Ir - .<%i*+.%*w"". **_.-"'-7" "t;w+S:_ L"T;B..ti* w%' 'ixw piece of evidence. It cngazQ~~&eus9t~$onfront . . w%t a witness with %@?.; -% its contents during the course of recording his/her statement by the court. Since the transcription of statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is with the petitioner, he can always confront the prosecutrix with the contents of her statement. In what circumstances, the statement was made is in the realm of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the second prayer that the compact disc be played in Court cannot be accepted by this court.
Statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not per se admissible. If prayer of the, petitioner is accepted, ordinarily it will operate against the accused as statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be used against the accused.
Section 145 of Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-
"45. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing - A witness ."Si,., :" mayvp be crossexamined as to previous 2 ".y 7- .,,%,,% statements ,,mqde)by ih$ i~ ,wr$:ngg',or. reduced into writing and + * 2.+e3* , #'K325,. '5 v 2. $.* g g g- relevant 79 mat$er In question, w~.tho~~t~$such writing being shown .7 f14 to hir&-b,r p3$.&.?- 8eins proved; but if it is intended %contradict him by the Wflting, his attentisn must, before the wtidkcan be proved, ?bzcilled to those parts of it which are to 6e4ised for the fii=rF4purpose %<.. of contradicting him." ,+~>;''.$ , ir 3 .%* @&>
Section 145 s statement made by the witness in writi ess, so far relevant
questions are concer being shown to the witness. Therefore, Section 161 Cr.P.C. being a previous stat to .a witness what to
say of playing of corn
stands disposed of.
INGH AHLUWALIA),J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a prayer to play the videographed Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement in court can be accepted under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Whether the transcription of a Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement is necessary for cross-examination under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ram Sharan @ Pappuram
State of Rajasthan
Kanwarjit Singh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
