Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, was hearing three connected criminal appeals: Criminal Appeal No. 348 of 2013 filed by the accused Ayush Nirmal Pugaliya against the State of Maharashtra, and Criminal Appeals No. 391 of 2013 and 543 of 2013 filed by the State against the accused. During the hearing, the court found that the trial judge had granted liberty to the defence counsel to put questions regarding omissions in the depositions of PW 4 Shubham Ashok Baid and PW 5 Raidam Ravi KishanPuriya directly to the Investigating Officer (PW 31 Sunil Jaiswal), instead of first putting those omissions to PW 4 and PW 5. This was contrary to proper practice and procedure. Consequently, on 26th February 2015, the court passed an order under Section 391(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, to record additional evidence by first putting the omissions to PW 4 and PW 5, and then to the Investigating Officer. Pursuant to that order, additional evidence was recorded. Thereafter, the court resumed hearing. The learned counsel for the accused argued that he was entitled to read the originally recorded evidence of PW 31 (Investigating Officer) regarding the omissions, in addition to the additional evidence. The learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the originally recorded evidence could not be read as it was found contrary to practice and procedure, and only the additional evidence recorded pursuant to the remand order could be read. The court framed a question of law on this issue and directed the parties to address it on the next day. The judgment does not record the final decision on the appeals, only the framing of the question.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Additional Evidence under Section 391 CrPC - Admissibility of Original Evidence After Remand - The court framed a question of law whether the originally recorded evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW 31) regarding omissions of PW 4 and PW 5 can be read after a remand order under Section 391 CrPC directing recording of additional evidence, or only the additional evidence recorded pursuant to the remand order can be read. The court noted that the original evidence was found contrary to practice and procedure, and directed the parties to address on this issue. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the originally recorded evidence of PW 31 (Investigating Officer) regarding omissions of PW 4 and PW 5 can be read after a remand order under Section 391 CrPC directing recording of additional evidence, or only the additional evidence recorded pursuant to the remand order can be read.
Final Decision
The court framed a question of law and directed the parties to address it on the next day. No final decision on the appeals was recorded.
Law Points
- Section 391 CrPC
- additional evidence
- remand order
- admissibility of original evidence
- omissions in deposition
- cross-examination of investigating officer
