Udal Prasad @ Udaybhan And Another v. State Of U.P. And Another

Court No. - 41 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4957 of 2015

Applicant :- Udal Prasad @ Udaybhan And Another

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Pandey

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants; learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

The applicants are accused and facing Session Trial No.66 of 2012, which is pending before the Additional Session Judge, Court No.15, Jhansi, under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC, arising out of case crime no.835 of 2008, police station Gursarai, district Jhansi. It appears that an application was filed on behalf of the prosecution to bring on record the High School certificate of the victim so as to indicate the date of birth of the victim as 1st November, 1991. The said High School certificate was taken on record by order dated 18th April, 2014. Later, the prosecution moved an application no.56-B under Section 311 CrPC before the trial Judge to summon the victim; the Principal, Rajkiya Balika Inter College and the concerned clerk for proving the High School certificate. To the said application the accused raised an objection. After considering the objection of the accused, the Additional Session Judge, Court No.15, Jhansi vide order dated 7th July, 2014 rejected the application 56-B by observing that there was no necessity to examine the aforesaid witnesses as the High School certificate is a public document and was admissible in evidence.

Challenging the order dated 7th July, 2014 as also the earlier order dated 18th April, 2014 the instant application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the view taken by the Court below that the High School certificate would be admissible as a public document without requirement of any formal proof is not legally correct because whether the said High School certificate is a forged or fabricated document can only be proved by production of the necessary record and by examination of the witnesses who are custodian of the record. It has also been submitted that the order dated 18th April, 2014 taking the High School certificate on record is without jurisdiction. Neutral Citation No. - 2015:AHC:42729

1

So far as the order dated 18th April, 2014 taking the High School certificate on record is concerned, the said order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, under Section 91 CrPC the Court has ample power to take evidence on record at any stage. Therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the order dated 18th April, 2014. So far as the observation made in the order dated 7th July, 2014 that High School certificate does not require to be proved is concerned, suffice it to say that if the applicants, who are accused, desire to challenge the veracity/authenticity of the said High School certificate they must move an application before the trial Judge for examination of the custodian of the record. Surprisingly, the applicants had opposed the application of the prosecution when the prosecution had applied for examination of the custodian of the record. Accordingly, I do not consider this case to be a fit case for interference. However, it is left open to the applicants to apply before the trial Judge for examination of the custodian of the record as also lead such evidence which may go to show that the said High school certificate or the entry made therein is incorrect.

With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.4.2015.

Rks.

2