CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has challenged the impugned order dated 20. 9. 2005 passed by the Special Judge (SC/st) Court, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby the objections raised by the petitioner requesting that the part of the statement given by the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr. P. C. by which she is confronted during trial should be reproduced verbatim in her testimony has been rejected. Hence, this petition before us.
(2.) MR. Sahni learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a short cut the trial marks the part of the statement by which the prosecution is confronted merely as `a' to `b' and `c' to `d'. But the Trial Court does not record the said statement verbatim in the testimony of the prosecutrix. Such a short cut leads to a host of complications. For example, while passing the decision, in the absence of verbatim reproduction of the statement, the Trial Court may or may not understand the contradiction pointed out by the defence. Moreover, the Trial Court lawyers or the defence lawyers may not mark the relevant portion as `a' to `b' and `c' to `d'. Therefore, when the file is passed on to the learned counsel in the High Court would not even know of the relevant portion which has been marked as `a' to `b', `c' to `d'. At times, because of the ineligible quality of writing, even the Appellate Court does not know the part of statement which was used for confronting the witnesses. Hence, the Appellate Court is not in a position to appreciate the contradiction pointed out by the accused. It, thus, may fail to evaluate the sterling worth of the witnesses. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Trial Judge should be directed to write that part of the statement of the prosecutrix used for confronting her from her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. completely in her testimony as a part of cross-examination instead of making it merely as `a' to `b' and `c' to `d'. On the other hand, learned P. P. has argued that merely marking the relevant portion as `a' to `b' and `c' to `d' suffices for the purpose of trial and for the purpose of appellate Court. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in rejecting the prayer made by the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The mandate of Sec. 275 Cr. P. C. is important for Section 275 (3) Cr. P. C. provides two options to the Trial Court while recording the evidence; ordinarily, it should be recorded in a narrative form. At the discretion of the Magistrate, it may be recorded in question and answer form. Since generally evidence is to be recorded in the narrative form, it is essential that the portion of the statement recorded under Section 161 by which the witness is being confronted should be reproduced. In case, the portion is not reproduced. In case, the portion is not reproduced verbatim, the recording is no longer in the "narrative form". Moreover, Rule 62 of the General Rules (Criminal) 1980 also lays down that "when a witness is contradicted by his previous statements and a particular portion is put to him, it is necessary for the Judges and the Magistrate to incorporate the portions of the earlier statements which are put to the witness, and about which answer is given by the witness before them, while recording the evidence" (Emphasis added ). It is essential that the testimony of each witness must be recorded in greatest details. Such a recording would present a clear picture to the Trial Court as well as to the Appellate Court about the relevant parts, the facts in issue and about the sterling worth of the witnesses. Such course would certainly help the Courts in appreciating the evidence ore completely. Another principle that has to be kept in mind is that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to be done". In case, the relevant portion of the statement is reproduced in the testimony of the witnesses in the cross-examinations, the part of the contradiction as pointed out by the defence is also recorded, a genuine feeling is ingrained in the mind of the accused that total and substantial justice has been done to him. Hence, the recent trend to merely mark the portion as `a' to `b' and `c' to `d' should be avoided at all cost. For this reasons, the learned trial Judge was not justified in rejection the request of the petitioner for completely quoting the relevant portion of the statement made earlier to the police in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the learned trial Judge to emphatically and clearly quote the relevant portion of the statement of the prosecutrix given by her to the police prior to the trial which is used by the defence counsel to contradict her in her cross-examination.
(3.) REGISTRAR General of this Court is directed to send copy of this judgment to every District and Sessions Judge of the State so that relevant portion of the statements would be recorded by the learned Judicial officers. With the above observations, the Cr. Misc. Petition is allowed. .;