Tag Archives: false rape

Father forces daughter to file rape on Lover – husband and his sister !!

A great father who did NOT like his future daughter in law is said to have forced / coerced his daughter to file a false rape case on her own lover husband as the father did NOT approve of their Arya Samaj marriage. Not only did they file a rape case on the poor fella, they also added abetment on his sister !!. Now both accused are acquitted by the courts ! of course there is NO punishment for the father or the false rape case filing girl !!

Screenshot - 22_06_2016 , 13_08_23

11 months Jail for a FALSE rape case AFTER girl eloped. Falsity apparent says Allahabad HC & grants bail

  • Girl seems to have voluntarily eloped with the boy
  • however, claiming that the girl is only 16 years old a rape case is filed and the boy incarcerated since 08. July 2015 !! (approx 11 months)
  • Court notices and states the following “…. allegation of rape against the applicant but the same has not been corroborated by any medical evidence and surrounding circumstances is totally belies the prosecution case as well as statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her medical report does not show any mark of injury, violence or sexual assault. He further submits that it is not a case of taking away or enticing away the prosecutrix as from a perusal of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she has voluntarily eloped with the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 8.7.2015. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that the Nana and Baba of the applicant have also been implicated in the present case….”

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH

Court No. – 4

Case :- BAIL No. – 4796 of 2016

Applicant :- Vimlesh Katheriya

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.

Counsel for Applicant :- Jairam Bharti
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha,J.

Heard Sri Jairam Bharti, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sushma Shukla, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per medical opinion, prosecutrix is 16 years. The law is settled that the margin of error in ascertaining the age by radiological examination is two years on either side and hence the possibility of the prosecutrix being major cannot be ruled out. Although, she has made an allegation of rape against the applicant but the same has not been corroborated by any medical evidence and surrounding circumstances is totally belies the prosecution case as well as statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Her medical report does not show any mark of injury, violence or sexual assault. He further submits that it is not a case of taking away or enticing away the prosecutrix as from a perusal of her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., it is apparent that she has voluntarily eloped with the applicant. The applicant has no criminal history. The applicant is in jail since 8.7.2015. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that the Nana and Baba of the applicant have also been implicated in the present case.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tempering of the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant Vimlesh Katheriya involved in Case Crime No. 587 of 2015 under sections 323, 342, 363, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, police station Mishrikh, District Sitapur be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions.

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 14.6.2016

shiraz

Visit http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/StartWebSearch.do for more Judgments/Orders delivered at Allahabad High Court and Its Bench at Lucknow.


—————————-disclaimer———————————-

This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites (this one is from Allahabad HC website). Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.

33 year old neice says 55 year old mama raped her over 2 years !! Mama, a vice Chancellor, is arrested !!

We do NOT know IF this is true. We are forwarding a news item for readers’ thoughts !!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bengaluru private university vice chancellor Madhukar G. Angur held on rape charge

The vice chancellor of a private university here has been arrested for allegedly raping a 33-year-old woman, the police said on Saturday.

 

 

 

 

Bengaluru, Feb 6 (IANS) The vice chancellor of a private university here has been arrested for allegedly raping a 33-year-old woman, the police said on Saturday.  ”We have arrested Madhukar G. Angur on Friday night on a complaint by the victim’s mother, who charged him with sexually abusing her daughter over a period, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Southeast) M.B. Boraingaiah told.  Angur (55), a divorcee, is the vice-chancellor of Alliance University, set up in 2010 at Anekal on the city’s southern outskirts.

“The victim is the accused’s niece, who has been working in the university’s administrative office since 2011. As the complaint is filed by her mother, who is his sister, we are interrogating them and others in the family,” Boralingaiah said.  Based on the written complaint, a first information report (FIR) has been registered against the accused under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). (Also Read: Man held for raping minor in Goregaon)

According to the complaint, the victim and the accused have been in relationship for a couple of years as Angur had promised to marry her but betrayed.  ”The victim’s mother said her daughter went into depression and is under counselling to recover from the trauma of betrayal and deceit by the accused,” the IPS officer added.  The accused also threatened the victim against complaining to the police or anyone else and blackmailed her mother with threats to “expose” their family.

Modified Date: February 6, 2016 6:46 PM

 

Father in law & uncle did NOT rape me. I just went to PS, Police wrote false case, made me sign. Delhi case !

Innocent Woman says one thing in complaint (rape etc.) , repeats that in examination in chief (father in law & husband’s uncle raped me, husband had un unatural sex etc) and then in cross eamination, says the police wrote all the false complaint and she was forced to sign without reading the complaint !! She is protected, her name is withheld by the Hon. court and acused (earlier arrested etc) are acquitted. Of course NO punishment for Poor woman !!

Excerpts

“…Apart from levelling allegations of cruelty and dowry demands in the complaint, the prosecutrix had also stated therein that her husband Himanshu had been committing un-natural sex with her and Himanshu’s maternal uncle Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014….”

“….The accused Ashok and Rajesh were arrested after their bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court. The bail applications of the remaining accused were dismissed by the Sessions court but they were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court later on. ….”

“…In her examination in chief, she reiterated that she had been treated with cruelty by her in laws i.e. accused persons and cash in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs as well as heavy jewellery were being demanded from her. She also reiterated that accused Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014. She added that her father-in-law Ashok also committed rape upon her on 18.5.2014. She deposed that her husband used to show blue films to her and then used to have oral sex as well as anal sex with her…..”

“…..9. However, in the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons, she took a complete U-turn and deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case ……”, “....She further deposed that somebody had written the complaint in the police station, upon which she was asked to sign without being permitted to go through its contents. …”

“…It is thus evident that all the accused are innocent and none of them had inflicted any kind of cruelty (physical, mental or sexual) upon the prosecutrix. It is also manifest that none of the accused has made any dowry demand from the prosecutrix.

13. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent, credible or trust worthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. All the accused are, therefore, liable to be acquitted and are hereby acquitted….”


IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER BHAT, A.S.J. (SPECIAL
FAST TRACK COURT), DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.

SC No.79/15

Unique Case ID No.02405R0080192015.

State

Vs.

  1. Ashok Kumar s/o Sh. Bhagwan
    R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
    Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.
    (Discharged vide order dated 09.11.2015).
  2. Rajesh s/o Sh. Prem Singh
    R/o VPO Siwaha Distt Jind Haryana.

  3. Smt. Pushpa w/o Sh. Ashok Kumar
    R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
    Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.

  4. Himanshu s/o Ashok Kumar,
    R/o House No.481, Dutta Colony,
    Asand Road, Panipat, Haryana.

  5. Smt. Priyanka w/o Praveen,
    R/o Patiala Chowk, Jind,
    Haryana.

  6. Praveen
    R/o Patiala Chowk, Jind,
    Haryana.
    (Discharged vide order dated 09.11.2015).

Date of Institution :10.07.2015.
FIR No.437/14 dated 15.07.2014.
U/s.376/498A/34 IPC.
P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar.

Date of reserving judgment :16.12.2015.
Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2015.

JUDGMENT

 

  1.  Accused Ashok Kumar, Rajesh, Himanshu, Praveen, Priyanka and Pushpa had been charge sheeted by the prosecution for having committed the offence punishable u/s 498A/406/34 IPC.
  2. According to the prosecution case, the prosecutrix namely ‘P’ (real name has been withheld in order to conceal her identity) had submitted a written complaint in the police station against the above named persons. Accused Himanshu is her husband, accused Ashok and accused Pushpa are her parents in law, accused Priyanka is her sister in law, accused Praveen is Priyanka’s husband and accused Rajesh is the maternal uncle of Himanshu. Apart from levelling allegations of cruelty and dowry demands in the complaint, the prosecutrix had also stated therein that her husband Himanshu had been committing un-natural sex with her and Himanshu’s maternal uncle Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  3. FIR was registered on the aforesaid complaint of the prosecutrix and the investigation was entrusted to SI Suman. She got the medical examination of prosecutrix conducted and seized the exhibits given by the doctor. The prosecutrix was produced before a lady Magistrate, who recorded her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The accused Ashok and Rajesh were arrested after their bail applications were dismissed by the Sessions Court. The bail applications of the remaining accused were dismissed by the Sessions court but they were granted anticipatory bail by the High Court later on. They joined the investigation and were interrogated by the IO. All the exhibits of the case were sent to the FSL by the IO for forensic examination.
  4.  After completion of the investigation, the IO prepared the charge sheet and submitted the same to the court concerned. Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, the accused Ashok and accused Praveen were discharged vide order dated 9.11.2015 by this court. However, charge u/s 377 IPC was framed against accused Himanshu, charge u/s 376 IPC was framed against accused Rajesh and charge u/s 498A IPC and u/s 506/34 IPC was framed against three accused Himanshu, Pushpa and Priyanka. Further charge u/s 406 IPC was also framed against accused Pushpa.
  5. All the accused denied the charges and hence trial was held.
  6. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to prove the charges against the accused. The accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.12.2015 wherein all of them denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence.
  7. I have heard ld. APP, ld. Counsel for accused and have perused the entire record.
  8. The prosecutrix has been examined as PW4. In her examination in chief, she reiterated that she had been treated with cruelty by her in laws i.e. accused persons and cash in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs as well as heavy jewellery were being demanded from her. She also reiterated that accused Rajesh had committed rape upon her on 14.5.2014. She added that her father-in-law Ashok also committed rape upon her on 18.5.2014. She deposed that her husband used to show blue films to her and then used to have oral sex as well as anal sex with her.
  9. However, in the cross examination conducted on behalf of accused persons, she took a complete U-turn and deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case as well as to her deposition in examination in chief. She admitted that none of the accused had ever beaten her or had ever demanded dowry from her. She admitted that neither her husband nor any of her in laws had inflicted any physical, mental or sexual harassment upon her. She deposed that her parents had told her that her husband has eloped alongwith the wife of his own cousin and upon hearing this she became enraged and in a fit of rage as well as upon their instigation, she went to police station to lodge a complaint. She further deposed that somebody had written the complaint in the police station, upon which she was asked to sign without being permitted to go through its contents. She admitted that the contents of the application were not even read over to her before taking her signatures upon the same. The complaint was read over to her in the court and she stated that its contents are false and incorrect. She deposed that no incident as deposed by her had infact taken place. She stated that she reiterated the contents of the complaint in her statement to the ld. MM and in her examination in chief also on the asking of the police officials including the IO. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  10. She was re-examined by the ld. APP with the permission of the court and in her re-examination, she denied that she had submitted the complaint Ex. PW4/A in the police station voluntarily and not in a fit of rage or upon the instigation of her parents. She also denied that the contents of her complaint Ex. PW4/A and her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW4/B were true and correct.
  11. PW5 is the father of prosecutrix and PW6 is her mother. In their examination in chief, they also deposed that their daughter i.e. the prosecutrix was treated with cruelty by her in laws and they had been demanding a car, Rs. 5 lacs in cash and heavy jewellery from her. However, in the cross examination, they also admitted that prosecutrix was never harassed by her in laws or by her husband at any point of time. They expressed ignorance about the contents of the complaint Ex. PW4/A stating that it was neither written by them nor by their daughter. They admitted that when they heard that their son-in-law Himanshu had eloped with the wife of his cousin, they got enraged and pressurised their daughter to file a case against him. PW6 also admitted that her daughter had not told her that Himanshu’s maternal uncle Rajesh had raped her.
  12. These were the three star witnesses of the prosecution. All of them have deposed totally contrary to the prosecution case in their cross examination. They have said one thing in the examination in chief and have given totally contrary version in their cross examination. It is thus evident that all the accused are innocent and none of them had inflicted any kind of cruelty (physical, mental or sexual) upon the prosecutrix. It is also manifest that none of the accused has made any dowry demand from the prosecutrix.
  13. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent, credible or trust worthy evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. All the accused are, therefore, liable to be acquitted and are hereby acquitted.

Announced in open (VIRENDER BHAT)
Court on 22.12.2015. Addl. Sessions Judge
(Special Fast Track Court)
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi.

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.


CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

 

A CD containing voice recordings is admissible evidene : Supreme Court – 23 Nov 2015

a man (falsely ? ) accused of raping (IPC 376), mollesting (IPC 354) a nine year old kid (his own brother in law’s daughter), seeks to establish his innocence. He claims that the whole case was born out of a property dispute and he claims to have voice conversations. However the opposite party oppose it and lower courts deny him the right to use it as an evidence. Appellant reaches Apex court who permit using the CD as evidence !!


Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2015

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9151 of 2015)

Shamsher Singh Verma… Appellant

Versus

State of Haryana…Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Prafulla C. Pant, J.

  1. This appeal is directed against order dated 25.8.2015, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby said Court has 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.,http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
  3. Briefly stated, a report was lodged against the 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 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 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 “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: – “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 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 there is recording of conversation 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 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 and the courts below have erred in law in denying the right of defence.
  6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the State contended that it is a case 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 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) 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 Court, vide its order dated 25.10.2013, appointed Warrant Officer, and the appellant was released on 25.10.2013 at 10.25 p.m. Immediately thereafter FIR No. 232 dated 25.10.2013 was registered at 10.35 p.m. regarding alleged molestation on the basis of which Sessions Case is proceeding. On behalf 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.
  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 subsequent to the incident of molestation 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 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)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 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. (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: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.”
  11. 11. 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. 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:
    • ‘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.

      • Illustration
      • A writing is a document;
      • Words printed, lithographed or photographed are documents;
      • 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 (1973) 1 SCC 471 : 1973 (2) SCR 417)
    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.
  13. In Ziyauddin Barhanuddin Bukhari vs. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra and others (1976) 2 SCC 17 : 1975 (Supp) SCR 281, it was held by this Court that tape-records of speeches were “documents”, as defined by Section 3 of the Evidence Act, which stood on no different 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 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 record. ( c ) The subject-matter recorded had to be shown to be relevant according to rules of relevancy found in the Evidence Act.”
  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. It is not necessary for the court to obtain admission or denial on a 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 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 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. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
  15. On going through the order dated 21.2.2015, passed 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 Shamsher Singh Verma recorded under Section 313 CrPC (annexed as Annexure 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 property dispute. It is also stated that some conversation is in possession of his son. From the 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.
  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 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 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 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.

J. [Dipak Misra]

J. [Prafulla C. Pant]

New Delhi;

November 24, 2015.