SHAMSHER SINGH VERMAversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                       [2015] 12 S.C.R. 234


A                  SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA
                                v.
                      STATE OF HARYANA
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2015)
B
                      NOVEMBER 24, 2015
         [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.294 - Right of
c defence - Denial of - Allegation against the accused-
  appellant that he molested a female child aged 9 years -
  Complainant party and accused-appellant related to each
  other-Application by accused-appellant for getting exhibited
  the compact disc filed in defence and to get the same proved
D from Forensic Science Laboratory- In the application, it was
  alleged that there was recording of conversation between
  father of the victim and the son and the wife of the accused
  regarding the property dispute - Said application rejected -
  Held: The compact disc is a document - On document filed
E by the defence, endorsement of admission or denial by the
  public prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to prove
  the document if not admitted by the prosecution - Courts
  below erred in law in rejecting the application to play the
  compact disc in question to enable the public prosecutor to
F admit or deny, and to get it sent to the Forensic Science
  Laboratory, by the defence - Penal Code, 1860 - s.354 -
  Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2015 -
  Evidence - Compact disc.

G        Allowing the appeal, the Court

      ·HELD: 1. The object of Section 294 CrPC is to
  accelerate pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted
  by the parties in recording the unnecessary evidence.
H Where genuineness of any document is admitted, or its
                                234
  SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA v. STATE OF HARYANA                   235


formal proof is dispensed with, the same may be read in      A
evidence. The compact disc is a document. It is not
necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on
a document under sub-section (1) to Section 294 Cr.P.C.
personally from the accused or complainant or the
witness. The endorsement of admission or denial made         B
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
CrPC. Similarly on a document filed by the defence,
endorsement of admission or denial by the public             C
prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to prove
the document if not admitted by the prosecution. In case
it is admitted, it need not be formally proved, and can be
read in evidence. In a complaint case such an
                                                             0
endorsement can be made by the counsel for the
complainant in respect of document filed by the defence.
[Paras 11, 14] [240-B; 241-E-G]

     2. As per order dated 21.2.2015 passed by the trial
court, all the prosecution witnesses, including the child E
victim, her mother, maternal grandmother and
complainant were examined. The father of the victim
appeared to have been discharged by the prosecution,
and the evidence was closed. From the copy of the
statement of accused recorded under Section 313 F
Cr.P.C., the accused has alleged that he has been
implicated due to property dispute. It is also stated that
some conversation is in possession of his son. From
the record it also reflected that the Registration Clerk, G
the Document Writer, the Clerk-cum-Cashier, State Bank
of Patiala, and the son of the appellant were examined
as defence witnesses and evidence in defence is in
progress. The courts below have erred in law in not
allowing the application ofthe,~efence to get played the H
236        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A  compact disc relating to conversation between father of
   the victim and son an.d wife of the appellant regarding
   alleged property dispute. 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
 B 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. {Para 15-
 C 16] [241-H; 242-A-C, E-F]

           R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 1
           SCC 471: 1973 (2) SCR 4; Ziyauddin
           Barhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass
 D         Mehra and others (1976) 2SCC17: 1975 (Supp)
           SCR 281 - relied on.

                         Case Law Reference
      1973 (2) SCR 4               relied on.            Para 12
 E    1975 (Supp) SCR 281          relied on.            Para 13
          CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
      Appeal No. 1525 of 2015

           From the Judgment and Order dated 25.08.2015 of the
 F    Judicature of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No.
      6828 of 2015.

           Jay Savla, Shilpi Chowdhary, Ankita Jain for the appellant.

 G         Mahalakshmi Pawani, Shakti P. Sethi, Mamta Rani, Anu
      Gupta, Vishwa Pal Singh, ShrinathAgarwalforthe respondent.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed
 H against order dated 25.8.2015, passed by the High Court of
  SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA v. STATE OF HARYANA                         237
            [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby said Court has A
affirmed the order dated 21.2.2015, passed by the Special
Judge, Kaithal, in Sessions Case No. 33 of 2014, and rejected
the application of the accused for getting exhibited the compact
disc, filed in defence and to get the same proved from Forensic
Science Laboratory.                                              B

     2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the papers on record.

      3. Briefly stated, a report was lodged against the C
appellant (accused) on 25.10.2013 at Police Station, Civil
Lines, Kaithal, registered as FIR No. 232 in respect of offence
punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
and one relating to Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act, 2015 (POCSO) in which complainant Munish Verma o
alleged that his minor niece was molested by the appellant. It
appears that after investigation, a charge sheet is filed against
the appellant, on the basis of which Sessions Case No. 33 of
2014 was registered. Special Judge, Kaithal, after hearing
the parties, on 28.3.2014 framed charge in respect of offences E
punishable under Sections 354A and 376 IPC and also in
respect of offence punishable under Sections 4/12 of POCSO.
Admittedly prosecution witnesses have been examined in said
case, whereafter statement of the accused was recorded under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short F
"CrPC"). In defence the accused has examined four witnesses,
and an application purported to have been moved under
Section 294 CrPC filed before the trial court with following
prayer: -
                                                                     G
      "In view of the submissions made above it is therefore
      prayed that the said gadgets may be got operated initially
      in the court for preserving a copy of the text contained
      therein for further communication to F. S. L. for establishing
      their authenticity. It is further prayed that the voice of H
238         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A          Sandeep Verma may kindly be ordered to be taken by
           the experts at FSL to be further got matched with the
           recorded voice above mentioned."
             4. In said application dated 19.2.2015, it is alleged that
8     there is recording of convers::ition between Sandeep Verma
      (father of the victim) and Saurabh (son of the accused) and
      Meena Kumari (wife of the accused). The application appears
      to have been opposed by the prosecution. Consequently, the
      trial court rejected the same vide order dated 21.2.2015 and
c     the same was affirmed, vide impugned order passed by the
      High Court.

             5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us
      that the accused has a right to adduce the evidence in defence
0     and the courts below have erred in law in denying the right of
      defence.

        6. On the other hand, learned counsel forthe complainant
  and learned counsel for the State contended that it is a case
E of sexual abuse of a female child aged nine years by his uncle,
  and the accused/appellant is trying to linger the trial.

          7. In reply to this, learned counsel for the appellant
  pointed out that since the accused/appellant is in jail, as such,
  there is no question on his part to protract the trial. It is further
F submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant was
  initially detained on 24.10.2013 illegally by the police at the
  instance of the complainant, to settle the property dispute with
  the complainant and his brother. On this Writ Petition (Criminal)
G No. 1888 of 2013 was filed before the High Court for issuance
  of writ of habeas corpus. It is further pointed out that the High
  Co:1rt, vide its order dated 25.10.2013, appointed Warrant
  Officer, and the appellant was released on 25.10.2013at10.25
  p.m. Immediately thereafter FIR No. 232 dated 25.10.2013
H was registered at 10.35 p.m. regarding alleged molestation
   SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA v. STATE OF HARYANA                       239
             [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

·on the basis of which Sessions Case is proceeding. On behalf A
 of the appellant it is also submitted that appellant's wife Meena
 is sister of Munish Verma (complainant) and Sandeep Verma
 (father of the victim), and there is property dispute between
 the parties due to which the appellant has been falsely
 implicated.                                                       B

       8. Mrs. Mahalakshmi Pawani, learned senior counsel for
the complainant vehemently argued that the alleged
conversation among the father of the victim and son and wife
of the appellant is subs.equent to the incident of molestation C
and rape with a nine year old child, as such the trial court has
rightly rejected the application dated 19.2.2015.

      9. However, at this stage we are not.inclined to express
any opinion as to the merits of the prosecution case or defence   o
version. The only point of relevance at present is whether the
accused has been denied right of defence or not.
      10. Section 294 CrPC reads as under: -
      "294. No formal proof of certain documents. - (1)           E
      Where any document is filed before any Court by the
      prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such
      document shall be included in a list and the prosecution
      or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for
      the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called     F
      upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such
      document.
      (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be
      prescribed by the State Government.                       G
     (3) Where the genuineness of any document is not
     disputed, such document may be read in evidence in
     any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code
     without proof of the signature of the person to whom it
     purports to be signed:                                  H
240            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 12 S.C.R.


A             Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such
              signature to be proved."

          11. The object of Section 294 CrPC is to accelerate
   pace of trial by avoiding the time being wasted by the parties
 B in recording the unnecessary evidence. Where genuineness
   of any document is admitted, or its formal proof is dispensed
   with, the same may be read in evidence. Word "document" is
   defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as
   under:-
 C            " 'Document' means any matter expressed or described
              upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks,
              or by more than one of those means, intended to be used,
              or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that
              matter.
 D
                                        Illustration
              A writing is a document;
              Words printed, lithographed or photographed are
              documents;
 E            A map or plan is a document;
              An inscription on a metal plate or stone is a document;
              A caricature is a document."
         12. In R.M. Malkani vs. State of Maharashtra 1 , this
 F 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.
 G
         13. In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan
   Ramdass Mehra and others2 , it was held by this Court that
   tape-records of speeches were "documents'', as defined by
      1   (1973) 1 sec 471 : 1973 (2) scR 417
 H    ' (1976) 2 sec 17 : 1975 (Supp) SCR 2a1
   SHAMSHER SINGH VERMA v. STATE OF HARYANA                       241
             [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different A
footing than photographs, and that they were admissible in
evidence on satisfying the following conditions:

     "(a) The voice of the person alleged to be speaking
          must be duly identified by the maker of the record      8
          or by others who know it.
     (b}   Accuracy of what was actually recorded had to be
           proved by the maker of the record and satisfactory
           evidence, direct or circumstantial, had to be there
           so as to rule out possibilities of tampering with the C
           record.
     (c)   The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to
           be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in
           the Evidence Act."                                     D

        14. 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. !t is not
necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a E
document under sub-section (1) to Section 294 CrPC
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 F
compliance of Section 294 CrPC. Similarly on a document
filed by the defence, endorsement of admission or denial by
the public prosecutor is sufficient and defence will have to
prove the document if not admitted by the prosecution. In case
it is admitted, it need not be formally proved, and can be read G
in evidence. In a complaint case such an endorsement can be
made by the counsel for the complainant in respect of
document filed by the defence.

     15. On going through the order dated 21.2.2015, passed       H
242          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 12 S.C.R.


,A by the trial court, we find that all the prosecution witnesses,
   including the child victim, her mother Harjinder Kaur, maternal
   grandmother Parajit Kaur and Munish Verma have been
   examined. Sandeep Verma (father of the victim) appears to
   have been discharged by the prosecution, and the evidence
   was closed. From the copy of the statement of accused
 8
   Shamsher Singh Verma recorded under Section 313 CrPC
   (annexed asAnnexure P-11 to the petition), it is evident that in
   reply to second last question, the accused has alleged that he
   has been implicated due to properly dispute. It is also stated
   that some conversation is in possession of his son, From the
 C record it also reflects that Dhir Singh, Registration Clerk, Vipin
   Taneja, Document Writer, Praveen Kumar, Clerk-cum-Cashier,
   State Bank of Patiala, and Saurabh Verma, son of the appellant
   have been examined as defence witnesses and evidence in
   defence is in progress.
D        16. We are not inclined to go into the truthfulness of the
   conversation sought to be proved by the defence but, in the
   facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we
   are of the view that the courts below have erred in law in not
   allowing the application of the defence to get played the
E compact disc relating to conversation between father of the
   victim and son and wife of the appellant regarding alleged
   property dispute. In our opinion, 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
F .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.
        17. Therefore, without expressing any opinion as to the
  final merits of the case, this appeal is allowed, and the orders
G passed by the courts below are set aside. The application
  dated 19.2.2015 shall stand allowed. However, in the facts
  and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the accused/
  appellant shall not be entitled to seek bail on the ground of
  delay of trial.                                     ·
 H    Oevika Gujral                                       Appeal allowed.