ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(RAJ)-2015-5-105
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on May 12,2015

Asharam @ Ashumal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents




JUDGEMENT

VIJAY BISHNOI, J. - (1.)THIS criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.152/2013, whereby the trial court has rejected the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner and allowed the exhibition of certain documents produced on behalf of one of the prosecution witnesses while observing that the objection regarding admissibility and proof of the document raised on behalf of the petitioner, shall be considered and decided at the time of final hearing.
(2.)THE petitioner is facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 342, 354 -A, 370(4), 376(2)(f), 376(D), 506, 509, 109, 120 -B, 34 IPC and sections 23, 26 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Act, 2000) and sections 5(f) (g), 7, 8 read with section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 before the trial court in sessions case No.152/2013. In the trial against the petitioner, recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses is under progress and on 22.04.2015, statement of PW.41 (Smt. Mukta Parikh) commenced. During examination -inchief, PW.41 has produced few documents and the prosecution requested the trial court to get those documents exhibited. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner before the trial court, raised objection that the documents produced by PW.41 cannot be exhibited without deciding about their admissibility and proof.
(3.)IT was contended before the trial court that PW.41 is not the author of said documents and, therefore, the said documents cannot be exhibited or proved by her. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the present prosecution witness cannot prove those documents because the person, who has handed over these documents to her viz. Vivek Sharma has already been examined as prosecution witness and the said documents could only be proved by him, who eventually attested those documents. The objection raised on behalf of the petitioner regarding exhibition of the documents was opposed by the prosecution and it was argued that the said documents were handed over to PW.41 after attestation, by Mr Vivek Sharma - Principal of the school where the prosecutrix was studying, therefore, the said documents be allowed to be exhibited.
Learned trial court after taking into consideration the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner and the plea of the prosecution has held that merely marking of document will not mean that document is proved. It is also observed by the trial court that it is not giving any decision regarding the admissibility and proof of the documents and is merely marking those documents as exhibits and it will be open for the petitioner to raise objection about the admissibility and proof of the said documents at the time of final hearing of the case.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.