ORDER
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Petitioner Dilbhajan Singh, who is facing trial under Sections 376/506, IPC, has filed the instant criminal revision against the order dated 6-3-2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide which request of the petitioner to screen/ show the blue video recording, in which the prosecutrix is shown indulging in undesirable sexual acts, and to put certain questions in her cross-examination, has been declined.
2. On the basis of the complaint made by the prosecutrix, FIR No. 197 dated 6-5-2002 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station, Kotwali Bathinda. During the course of trial, when the prosecutrix was being examined as a witness, the defence counsel wanted to put and show her a blue video recording picture in which she was shown to have been involved in sexual inter-course with two boys, with object to demolish her credibility and establish her character being immoral. This prayer of the defence counsel was strongly opposed by the Public Prosecutor arguing that such kind of blue picture cannot be shown and put to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination in view of the specific amendment made by the legislation in Sections 146 and 155 of the Indian Evidence Act. On this point of law, cross-examination of the prosecutrix was deferred and the arguments were heard. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 6-3-2004, the learned trial Court rejected the prayer of the defence counsel, while holding that keeping in view the amendments made in the Indian Evidence Act, the accused cannot be allowed/permitted to show the blue picture in the Court room and to put the same to the prosecutrix in her cross-examination. Against this order, the petitioner has filed the instant criminal revision.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order and the various provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, I do not find any merit in the instant petition. In view of the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 28th and 172 reports, drastic amendment has been made in the Indian Evidence Act pertaining to the provisions where the prosecutrix is to be examined in a rape case. In this regard, two major amendments have been made by the Indian Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2002, which have been implemented by the Indian Parliament Act No. 4 of 2003 with effect from 1-1-2003. Firstly, the following proviso has been added to Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act :--
'Provided that in a prosecution for rape or attempt to commit rape, it shall not be permissible to put questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix as to her general immoral character.'
4. Secondly, the following Sub-section (4) of Section 155 has been deleted :--
When a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character.
5. In view of the aforesaid amendments, now, in a rape case, it is not possible to put questions to a prosecutrix pertaining to her generally immoral character. Similarly, Sub-section (3) of Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when a witness is cross-examined, the defence can ask him question which tend to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture, but the aforesaid provision has been added to this sub-section by the recent amendment. Now, in a rape case, the accused cannot be allowed to adduce any evidence to prove that the prosecutrix was having any immoral character, prior to the date of occurrence. In view of the aforesaid two specific amendments, made by the Parliament, the request of the petitioner, in the instant ease, was rightly declined.
6. While arguing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deletion of Sub-section (4) of Section 155 and insertion of proviso after Sub-section (3) of Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, do not debar the accused from placing on record an important piece of evidence or at least bringing specific acts of indulgence of the prosecutrix in undesirable activities to the notice of the Court to test her veracity or to discover who she is and what is her position in life or to shake her credibility by injuring her character as provided in Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 146 of the Act. He submitted that the inserted proviso only prohibits the putting of questions in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix pertaining to her general immoral character, whereas the petitioner merely wished to place on record an important piece of evidence regarding specific acts. He submitted that it was not the intention of the defence counsel to put questions in the cross-examination on the video recording except to admit or deny her being or not being there.
7. I am afraid the aforesaid contention of learned counsel cannot be accepted. The sole object and purpose of the petitioner to show and put the blue video recording, in which the prosecutrix is shown indulging in undesirable sexual acts, is to impeach her credibility and 'general immoral character'. However, the object of the aforesaid amendments is not to allow the defence counsel to ask the questions to the prosecutrix, in a rape case, about her character and to impeach her credibility. In the present case, as per the petitioner, the video recording pertains to the year 1990-91, when the prosecutrix was a student and was of only 19-20 years old. Such kind of video recording, if shown in the Court room, will definitely amount to impeach the general character of the prosecutrix and to embarrass her in the Court, which exactly is not permissible under the law. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court.