Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod @ … vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 6 May, 2025

Jharkhand High Court

Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod @ … vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 6 May, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                           (2025:JHHC:13548)




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             Cr.M.P. No.1023 of 2025
                                        ------

Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh @ Binod @ Vinod Kumar Singh,
aged about 52 years, son of Late Dev Kumar @ Deo Kumar Singh
Singh, Resident of Badiutola, P.O. and P.S. Kaira (Chapra Muffasel),
District- Chapra, State- Bihar. … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

——

             For the Petitioner        : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
                                         Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, Advocate
             For the State             : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
                                               ------
                                        PRESENT
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY


By the Court:-    Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to quash the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions

Trial No.276 of 2017 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under

Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. for marking the document exhibit after playing the

pen drive contained video footage in the Court, has been disposed of by the

court concerned.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, who is an accused person

of the said Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017, filed a petition under Section 294 of

the Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the pen drive containing the video footage of the

statement of the witness – Amar Singh be firstly permitted to be played in the

court to enable the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to admit or deny the

1 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:13548)

same and further to mark the Pen Drive without formal proof of the same and

also a prayer was made that the voice of Amar Singh may be ordered to be

taken by the experts of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi to get the

same matched with the recorded statement. The learned Additional Sessions

Judge-XVI, Dhanbad permitted the petitioner to follow the provisions of

Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam and ordered that only

upon complying with the provisions of said section, the Pen Drive can be

marked exhibit and treated as electronic evidence to prove the case in his

defence and by thus observing, disposed of the said petition filed by the

petitioner under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs.

State of Haryana reported in (2016) 15 SCC 485 and submits that therein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India taking into consideration the scheme of

Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. when the accused of that case intended to bring on

record a compact disc in his defence with the aid of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C.,

held that the compact disc is a document in terms of the Section 3 of the

Evidence Act, 1872 and further held as under in paragraph-16:-

“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.” (Emphasis supplied)

2 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:13548)

and held that learned court below have erred in law in not allowing the

application of the defence to get played the compact disc relating to

conversation which was relevant to the facts of that case and submits that in

this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad failed to

properly appreciate the principle of law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in the case Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (supra) and

has erroneously disposed of the petition of the petitioner by depriving the

petitioner to play the pen drive, the contents of which was relevant to the facts

of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by petitioner in

the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

5. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently

oppose the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the

compliance of Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is a

sine qua non for bringing any electronic evidence in record. It is then submitted

that, the insistence on the part of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI,

Dhanbad that the petitioner must comply with the said mandatory provision of

law cannot be said to illegal. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P., being

without any merit, be dismissed.

6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully

going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention

here that as observed in para-11 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of India in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana (supra); the

object of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. 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

3 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:13548)

with, the same may be read in evidence. In other words, Section 294 of the

Cr.P.C. is an exception to the general rule of evidence; where the contents of the

document may be proved, in case of primary evidence, by producing the

document itself for inspection of the court and oral evidence is required to

establish that the document produced is for the inspection of the court, is in fact

the document which is claimed to be the document concerned by any of the

parties to the case concerned; which is otherwise known as formal proof of a

document. But Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. is a means, by which a document can

still be read in evidence without its formal proof, if the genuineness of the

documents is not disputed by the parties, other than the party who produces

such document. It is crystal clear from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in the case of Shamsher Singh Verma vs. State of Haryana

(supra) that in case a document including an electronic record is admitted by

the party/parties; other than the one who produces it, it need not be formally

proved and can be read in evidence but if genuineness of the same is denied

then obviously, if the party still intends to adduce such document being the

electronic record, as evidence, such party has to formally prove the same and

once formal proof of a document is required, if it is an electronic record, then

the special provision as to evidence relating to electronic record, as envisaged

under Section 62 and the admissibility of such electronic record as envisaged

under Section 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is attracted.

7. So, these settled principle of law that if a party to a criminal case intends

to adduce an electronic record with the aid of Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. by

dispensing with the formal proof of the same, then the court concerned should

allow the party intending to adduce such evidence to get the same played to be

4 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:13548)

seen by the other party or its counsel as the case may be; or in case of a State the

Public Prosecutor or the Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, to

watch it and to put forth its contention whether the party other than the party

who produces such document, admits or denies the genuineness of such

document and once the other party denies the genuineness of such document,

obviously such document cannot be read in evidence with the aid of Section

294 of the Cr.P.C. and the formal proof of the same will be required and the

provisions of Section 62 and 63 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is to

be complied.

8. Now, coming to the facts of the case, though a specific prayer has been

made by the petitioner who is the accused person of case firstly to permit it to

play in the court the pen drive which is an electronic record, which the

petitioner intends to be read in evidence, by waiving its formal proof but the

learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad has committed a grave

illegality by not allowing the playing of the same and disposed of the petition

concerned.

9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated

27.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in

connection with Sessions Trial No.276 of 2017 is not sustainable in law and the

same is liable to be quashed and set aside.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in connection with Sessions Trial

No.276 of 2017, is quashed and set aside.

11. The matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI,

Dhanbad or its successor court with a direction to the learned Additional

5 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025
(2025:JHHC:13548)

Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad or its successor court to permit the petitioner to

play the pen drive in the court; in order to enable the Public Prosecutor or

Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, to either admit or deny the

same and if after watching the contents of the pen drive; after it is played in

court, the Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may

be, admits the same; the formal proof of the same can be dispensed with and

the same be read in evidence but if after watching, the Public Prosecutor or

Additional Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, denies the genuineness of the

same then the same has to be formally proved by complying with the

provisions of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

12. Accordingly, this Cr.M.P. stands allowed with the aforesaid observation.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated the 06th of May, 2025
AFR/ Animesh

6 Cr. M.P. No.1023 of 2025