Criminal Revision No.2144 of 2008 (O&M) :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: November 04 , 2008
Beant Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab & another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr.Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 311
Cr.P.C. for grant of permission to lead additional evidence, which has
been declined. The petitioner in fact wanted to tender the following
pieces of evidence:-
i) Certified copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in
case FIR No.31 dated 1.1.2006 U/s 420 IPC, P.S.
Criminal Revision No.2144 of 2008 (O&M) :2:Kotwali, Barnala.
ii) Certified copy of Enquiry report dated 11.1.2006.
iii) Complaint dated nil moved by Vijay Kumar against
Beant Singh complainant.
iv) Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Dated
10.12.2005.
v) Statement of accused Vijay Kumar U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
dated 5.2.2006 of accused Vijay Kumar.
The petitioner is facing prosecution under Sections 3 and
4 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act and was asked to explain the relevancy of the
documents which he wanted to lead in this case by way of additional
evidence. In addition, the petitioner was also asked to show if the
documents which he wanted to lead by way of additional evidence
would be admissible for being produced as a substantive evidence or
not.
Two of the documents, which the petitioner wanted to
produce by way of additional evidence, are the statements recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. not in instant case. Statement made to
police and recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can not be
considered a substantive evidence. Such previous statements are
available for the purpose of contradiction under Section 145 of the
Indian Evidence Act or may be for the purpose of corroboration etc.
The copy of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. in
another FIR again would not be taken as a substantive evidence
Criminal Revision No.2144 of 2008 (O&M) :3:
which can be permitted to be led as evidence in this case. Similar
would be the fate of enquiry report and the complaint moved by Vijay
Kumar against Beant Singh complainant. These documents may be
available for being used for the purpose of cross-examination to
contradict the witness, but apparently would not be otherwise
relevant. The petitioner could not make any submission in this
regard, but only stated that his prayer for leading additional evidence
has not been properly considered. The counsel for the petitioner
stuck to his submission that even if earlier his right to lead evidence
was closed, still he could be permitted to lead additional evidence,
which would not be in issue in view of the observations as noticed
above concerning the relevancy of this evidence for leading it on
record as a substantive evidence.
In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the
exercise of revisional jurisdiction and would, thus, dismiss this
revision petition.
November 04, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE