Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34697 of 2019 Applicant :- Narendra Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Anand Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satish Kumar Tyagi
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/opposite party no.1, Mr.
S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 and perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 03.09.2019 passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2016 (State vs Narendra and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1257 of 2015, under sections 498-A, 304-B IPC in alternative section 302 IPC and section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad pending in the court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act)/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, whereby application No. 77 Kha of the accused-applicant Narendra for providing C.D. of videography of post-mortem of the deceased has been rejected.
Assailing the impugned order dated 03.09.2019, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that any document, electronic evidence, etc., which are relevant for the just decision of the case, which has not already been provided to the accused, can be provided in view of provision of section 207 Cr.P.C. even during trial of the case. It is submitted that in this case C.D. of videography of post mortem of deceased has not been provided to the applicant prior to committing the case under section 209 Cr.P.C. by the committing Magistrate to the Court of Sessions, therefore, the trial court has committed legal error in rejecting his application No. 77 Kha.
Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2 vehemently opposed the said prayer of the accused-applicant by contending that similar prayer of the applicant has already been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 13.02.2018 and said order has not been further challenged by the applicant, therefore said order has become final, as such prayer made by the applicant is not liable to be allowed.
After having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned order dated 03.09.2019, I find that the trial court while rejecting the application No. 77 Kha of the accused-applicant has recorded specific finding that statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused has already been recorded on 25.05.2018 and trial of the accused is at the advance stage as the case is fixed for argument and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 19.08.2019 has also directed to conclude the trial within three months.
After perusing the record, I also find that in this case, statement of Dr. Ramesh Chandra Gupta, P.W.-4, has already been recorded on 05.12.2017, but the application in question (77 Kha) of the applicant has been moved on 26.08.2019. There is no explanation of delay in moving the said application (77 Kha). A finding has also been recorded by the trial court that it appears that accused-applicant is inclined to linger on the proceedings.
Since the aforesaid prayer has already been rejected by the trial court vide order dated 13.02.2018, which has not been challenged by the applicant and also did not disclose about the said order dated 13.02.2018 in the present application, as such, it is apparent that applicant has not come with clean hands before this Court, and therefore, this application is liable to be rejected.
There is no manifest error or illegality in passing the order impugned dated 03.09.2019 by the trial court.
The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 Sazia