- (1.) The petitioner who has been facing his trial, along with others, for commission of offences punishable under Section 306/406/498A of the Indian Penal Code in a sessions trial, before the Learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Second Court, Hooghly, challenged an order passed by the Learned Court refusing to, admit in record a Xerox copy of a document.
(2.) The Xerox copy of the document in question is a letter addressed to the Officer-In-Charge, Haripal Police Station, jointly, by Lakshmi Kanta Chowdhury, Subrata Kumar Chowdhury, Haradhan Ghosh and 5 others, who were the uncle, brother and other relations of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner, who committed suicide on March 12, 1997. In the said letter it was stated that they have no grievances against her in-laws over the death of Sadhana, when police handed over the dead body to her husband. Subsequently, the father of deceased, Rabin Chowdhury lodged an FIR with the police against the petitioner and others alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A/406/306 of the Indian Penal Code which has been ended filing of charge-sheet for the self same offences. According to the defence after filing of charge-sheet along with the police papers, the Xerox copy of the letter was supplied to the petitioner and other accuseds, in teens of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has however not been admitted by the prosecution. During the trial the defacto-complainant, Rabin Chowdhury, who was examined as the P.W. 1 while deposing in court admitted about the factum of writing of the said letter to the police by his relations, similarly, the P.W. 11 the Investigating Officer of the case also admitted about receipt of such letter by the Haripal Police Station but could not produce the same as was not available in the case diary. He further admitted about mentioning of the same in the Case Diary. However, during their cross-examining the defence did not produce the same before those two witnesses. The petitioner then made an application in the Sessions Court, praying for admission of the Xerox copy of the said letter lying with him.
(3.) Mr. Joymalya Bagchi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted before this court that there is no legal bar in admission of a Xerox copy of any document, which is a secondary evidence, and according to him that the admission of the said document in evidence is very much essential for the just decision of the case, otherwise the accused persons would be seriously prejudice. Mr. Ashimesh Goswami, the P.P. In-Charge, opposed the submission of Mr. Bagchi and submitted that the defence without taking any step earlier in this regard, made a mala fide attempt at this belated stage which ought to be rejected. Mr. Pradip Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the defacto- complainant opposed this application and contended that during the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is over, he intended to adduce defence evidence but thereafter took no step, as such at this stage the Xerox copy of the letter in question cannot be admitted in records. He further submitted such a prayer was previously rejected by the Trial Court.;