Case Number: Special Court Cases/6/2020
Parties: State versus Roni Antony
Order Number: 5
Filing Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020
Order Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024
Order Description: Criminal Order
Status: Evidence
Stage: Evidence
34 19.11.24 Sole accused Roni Antony on CB is present by filing hazira.
Ld. Advocate for the accused as well as Ld. Special PP are present.
As fixed, the record is taken up for passing order in respect of petition dated 08.07.24 filed on behalf of prosecution.
Heard both sides at length.
The gist of the application filed by Ld. Special PP Mr. Arul Peter is that, on 08.07.2024 the case was fixed for evidence of complainant. Accordingly complainant namely Sub-Inspector Biswajit Prasad was present and he was examined-in-part as PW 1. While deposing evidence, he stated the name of Dy.S.P as Ravi Bishnoi, but in fact, the Dy.S.P, CID at that relevant time was someone else. Witness/PW 1, i.e complainant at the time of deposition stated the name of Dy.S.P, who is not involved in this case and for that reason, Ld. Special PP deferred the examination-in-chief of PW 1 and filed the instant petition stating inter-alia that prosecution may be given liberty to refresh the memory of witness or else the case of prosecution will be prejudiced.
On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel vehemently raised objection to the petition filed by Ld. Special PP and filed written objection and contended that prosecution while examining, prosecution is putting answer in the mouth of the witness, who is a police officer and trying to bring all the facts in the deposition of PW 1 and subsequently by deferring the examination-in-chief in the name of refreshing memory. At this stage prosecution cannot be allowed to fill the lacuna in the prosecution case, as the same will badly prejudice the defence case.
Perused the case record. Apparently, the name of Dy.S.P, who was present at the time of alleged raid, has already been named in the charge sheet and who is yet to be summoned in this case. Complainant has stated the name of one Ravi Bishnoi in his deposition as the Dy.S.P, which has already been recorded and which cannot be removed at this stage. The contention of prosecution to refresh memory of witness in my considered view that, the memory of any witness may be refreshed by taking permission of the Court, as it is a normal human nature that after lapse of years, he might forget his past. The complainant in this case is a police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector and being a leading member of the raiding team, is not supposed to depose likewise. Be that as it may, at this juncture, I do not feel it appropriate to pass any order in respect of the instant petition filed by prosecution. The fact remains that, once witness in its volition gives answer which he remember, subsequently, the answer must go and the defence is at liberty to raise objection. The "allowing" or "objecting to" in the deposition should be recorded and its legal proposition shall be weighed at the time of argument and, thus, under the above circumstances, I am inclined to record the answer and the objection, both, and its evidentiary value shall be considered at the time of argument.
Accordingly, the petition filed by Ld. Special PP dated 08.07.24 is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.
Fix 24.02.25 for further evidence of PW
Judge,Spl.Court(NDPS) Judge,Spl.Court(NDPS)