Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J., upheld the decision of the Trial Court and rejected a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC.

A petition was filed for quashing the order passed by First Additional Session Judge to the Court of Additional Judge, whereby the trial Court allowed the prosecution’s application filed under Section 91 of CrPC. and took a certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act on record produced by the prosecution.

The applicant was facing a trial which was pending before the First Additional Session Judge to the Court of Additional Judge. He was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. During the trial, the prosecution filed an application for taking certificate issued under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act on record and the Court allowed that application. The applicant was aggrieved from that order and filed a petition.

The applicant submitted that the prosecution did not file the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act at the time of filing of charge-sheet while said certificate ought to have been filed along with the charge-sheet. The prosecution was not entitled to file the certificate at the time of trial. And therefore, the Trial Court committed a mistake in taking that certificate on record.

The State opposed this stating that the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act can be filed during the trial of the case. 

The Court relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Sonu v. State of Haryana, (2017) 8 SCC 570 where it held that although electronic records are not inherently admissible as evidence, the objection is that, objection relating to the mode or method of proof has to be raised at the time of marking of the document as an exhibit and not later.

Similarly, the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ravindra V. Desai, (2018) 16 SCC 273 held “Non-production of the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 on an earlier occasion was a curable defect which stood cured.”

Based on this, the Court held that the non-filing of the certificate of 65-B of the Evidence Act on an earlier occasion is a curable defect which can be cured by filing the certificate of 65-B at a later stage during trial. The trial court did not commit any mistake in taking that certificate of Section 65-B on record.[Antar Singh v. State of M.P., 2019 SCC OnLine MP 1981, decided on 13-08-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Pritinker Diwaker and Ali Zamin, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the accused and held that the trial Judge was justified in convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.

In the present case, the deceased Radhey Shyam Maheshwari was a practicing lawyer and also an active politician. Accused Chob Singh was earlier a block President of Congress party and he was expelled due to his anti-party activities. Since then he had inimical relations with the deceased. When deceased was going to the house of Advocate Rajendra Pal Gupta, the accused Chob Singh apprehended him and accused Dharma Pal and other three other accused attacked him. Dying declaration was also recorded regarding the same. Trial Judge framed charges against the accused-appellants and the deceased accused under Sections 302 and 34 IPC; whereas against accused-appellant, an additional charge was framed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. During the pendency of the trial, accused Chob Singh expired and the trial court proceeded with the case of remaining three accused persons. The trial Judge convicted the accused on the basis of the dying declaration and statements of two prosecution witnesses. The trial judge convicted the accused-appellant and acquitted Shyam Lal under Section 25 of Arms Act. The present appeal was filed challenging the said order.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, contended that prosecution witnesses 1 and 2 were not trustworthy, and that language of dying declaration prima facie showed that it was a concocted piece of evidence. He submitted that no one in his dying declaration would say that he is making a statement on oath.

Learned counsel for the State, Amit Sinha, supported the impugned judgment and argued that the statement of the two eye-witnesses were supported by the injury/medical report of the deceased and that the dying declaration of the deceased was fully reliable and trustworthy as the same was duly certified by the Doctor and the recorder of dying declaration i.e. the Executive Magistrate had administered oath to him before the accused died.

The Court placed reliance on Ramakant Mishra v. State of UP, (2015) 8 SCC 299 where it was held that mere fact that in the dying declaration an oath had been administered to the deceased before recording the same, would not doubt the credibility of the dying declaration and would not nullify the same.

Taking cumulative effect of all the facts and evidence it was held that the trial judge was justified in convicting the appellants as the Court found no substance in the argument of the defense that due to his physical condition the deceased was not in a position to make any such dying declaration. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.[Vidya Ram v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 2265, decided on 07-05-2019]