2015 (11) TMI 1896 - SC - Indian Laws

Denial of right of defence or not - application of the accused rejected for getting exhibited the compact disc - HELD THAT - In R.M. MALKANI VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1972 (9) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT , this Court has observed that tape recorded conversation is admissible provided first the conversation is relevant to the matters in issue; secondly, there is identification of the voice; and, thirdly, the accuracy of the tape recorded conversation is proved by eliminating the possibility of erasing the tape record. In view of the definition of 'document' in Evidence Act, and the law laid down by this Court, as discussed above, we hold that the compact disc is also a document. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a document Under Sub-section (1) to Section 294 Code of Criminal Procedure personally from the accused or complainant or the witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made by the counsel for defence, on the document filed by the prosecution or on the application/report with which same is filed, is sufficient compliance of Section 294 Code of Criminal Procedure. The courts below have erred in law in rejecting the application to play the compact disc in question to enable the public prosecutor to admit or deny, and to get it sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, by the defence. The Appellant is in jail and there appears to be no intention on his part to unnecessarily linger the trial, particularly when the prosecution witnesses have been examined. The orders passed by the courts below are set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of exhibiting a compact disc in defense for forensic examination.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against the denial of an accused's application to exhibit a compact disc in defense for forensic examination. The accused was charged with offenses under Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act based on a complaint of molestation. The trial court rejected the application to play the compact disc containing a conversation between the victim's father, son of the accused, and the accused's wife regarding a property dispute. The accused contended that the denial infringed upon his right to defense, while the prosecution argued that it was an attempt to delay the trial. The accused's counsel highlighted the false implication due to a property dispute between the parties. The senior counsel for the complainant emphasized the relevance of the conversation post the alleged incident. The court refrained from expressing an opinion on the case's merits but focused on whether the accused's right to defense was denied.

The court delved into the legal provisions of Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the importance of avoiding unnecessary evidence to expedite trials. Referring to precedents, the court established that tape recordings, including compact discs, are considered documents under the Evidence Act. The court outlined conditions for the admissibility of tape recordings, including identification of voices and ensuring accuracy to rule out tampering. It was concluded that the compact disc in question was a document, and compliance with Section 294 could be achieved through counsel endorsements. The court noted the progress of defense evidence and the accused's assertion of being falsely implicated due to a property dispute.

Ultimately, the court found that the lower courts erred in law by rejecting the application to play the compact disc for forensic examination. The accused's right to defense was upheld, considering his incarceration and the progress of the trial. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower courts' orders, and granting permission for the application. However, the accused was barred from seeking bail based on trial delay. The judgment focused on ensuring the accused's right to present evidence in defense while maintaining trial expediency and fairness.