2001 (11) TMI 1055 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of statements recorded during the Lie Detection Test.
2. Authority of the witness to record statements.
3. Stage at which objections regarding admissibility should be decided.
4. Whether the impugned order is an interlocutory order and if revision can lie against it.
5. Relevance and admissibility of expert testimony under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Admissibility of Statements Recorded During the Lie Detection Test:
The learned Addl. Sessions Judge ruled that the statements recorded by Dr. Smt. S. L. Vaya, PW-16, were confessional and thus inadmissible. The State contended that these statements were relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and should be admitted as expert evidence. The defense argued that these statements were made while the accused were in police custody and were thus inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

2. Authority of the Witness to Record Statements:
The Addl. Sessions Judge held that Dr. Smt. S. L. Vaya had no authority under the Criminal Procedure Code to record the statements of the accused. The State argued that since PW-16 is not a police officer, the statements recorded by her are not hit by Sections 25 or 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Stage at Which Objections Regarding Admissibility Should be Decided:
The State, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, argued that the Trial Court should record the evidence fully and decide on its admissibility at the final judgment stage. The defense countered that the Judge should admit only relevant and admissible evidence during the trial, as per Section 136 of the Indian Evidence Act.

4. Whether the Impugned Order is an Interlocutory Order and If Revision Can Lie Against It:
The defense argued that the impugned order was interlocutory and therefore not subject to revision. However, the court found that the order affected the rights of the parties and was thus not merely interlocutory. Therefore, the revision application was maintainable.

5. Relevance and Admissibility of Expert Testimony Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The court noted that the prosecution had not yet laid the foundation to establish PW-16 as an expert witness. The court directed that the trial should resume to allow the prosecution to lay this foundation and present relevant data and material regarding the Lie Detection Test.

Conclusion:
The court found that the Addl. Sessions Judge had committed a serious error by prematurely discarding the statements and closing the evidence of PW-16. The court emphasized that objections regarding admissibility should be noted and decided at the final judgment stage, as directed by the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal's case. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Trial Court to resume the evidence of PW-16, allowing the prosecution to lay the necessary foundation for expert testimony. The revision application was allowed, and the rule was made absolute to this extent.