Purusottam Pradhan Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

L. Mohapatra, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order dated 23.7.2002 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Berhampur in S.C. No. 26 of 1999 rejecting the petition filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the Revenue Inspector, Kelua for the purpose of production of village settlement map. R.O.R. etc.

2. From the impugned order, it appears that on 23rd of July, 2002 P.W. 24, who is the I.O. was examined, cross-examined and evidence from the side of the prosecution was closed. On , the said date a petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to summon the Revenue Inspector, Kelua to cause production of the village settlement map of village Gothagam, Khatian and R.O.R. of the lands locally known as Upara Bali and Balibandha etc. of village Gothagam. It further appears that the said petition was filed on the ground that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution who have stated that they have lands near about the place of occurrence had in fact no lands and it could only be proved by way of referring to the rnap of the local area as well as R.O.R. and Khatian standing in the names of different persons in that locality. The said petition was objected to by the Addl. P.P. on the ground that the Revenue Inspector of Kelua had been examined as P.W. 18 and the petitioner had enough opportunity to cross-examine the said witness on the above question and. therefore, there is no necessity to again call the Revenue Inspector for the purpose of production of the documents. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge rejected the petition on the ground that P.W. 18 was the Revenue Inspector of Kelua and from his evidence as well as from the evidence of other witnesses the point raised by the defence can be determined and more over the documents required by the defence for production through the Revenue Inspector can be proved by filing certified copies thereof.

3. Shri H.S. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that some witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution in their evidence stated that they have lands near the place of occurrence and according to Shri Mishra, the said statements of those witnesses is not a fact. Since suggestion made by the defence has been denied by the witnesses, it has become necessary to prove the said fact by way of production of documents before the Court and, therefore, examination of the Revenue Inspector who is in possession of the relevant documents is necessary. He also submitted that before examination of P.W. 18 an application was filed by the petitioner for a direction to the said witnesses to produce the records, but no order was passed on the said petition as a result of which P.W. 18 did not produce any record which necessitated filing of the present application. The learned counsel appearing for the State as well as the informant submitted that P.W. 18 could have been asked the question with regard to ownership of the land by different witnesses as claimed by him and such question having not been asked to the witnesses, the defence wants to summon another Revenue Inspector on the ground that the village settlement map, R.O.R. and Khatian are required for the purpose of defence plea. The learned counsel for the informant vehemently objected to the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the witnesses who claimed to have lands near the place of occurrence have already deposed and nothing was brought out in the cross-examination to disprove the statements and therefore, there is no necessity to give any further opportunity to the defence by summoning the Revenue Inspector for production of the documents. It was also argued that the petitioner could obtain the certified copies of the said documents for production before the Court.

4. From the records, it appears that the petitioner had filed an application to summon the Revenue Inspector for the purpose of production of village settlement map, Khatian and R.O.R. So far as P.W. 18 is concerned, from his deposition it appears that he was the Revenue Inspector of Kelua Circle on 15.1.97. He proceeded to the spot to identify the plot on which the occurrence had taken place and he was directed to go to the spot by the Tahasildar, Patrapur on the requisition of the Inspector. Crime Branch. After the spot on which the occurrence had taken place was identified by the villagers, he' prepared the sketch map showing surrounding plots. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was not asked to enquire and find out if the recorded tenant was dead or alive and he was not asked to enquire about possession in case the recorded tenant was found dead. From evidence of other witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the prosecution, it appears some of them have claimed to be in possession of the lands near the place of occurrence. Out of them only P.W. 6 has produced the R.O.R. in support of his claim and it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the witnesses who claim to be in possession of the lands near the place of occurrence have not supported their Statements by any documentary evidence except P.W. 6. In view of such nature of evidence available on record, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner should be asked to obtain certified copies of the documents or the Revenue Inspector should be summoned for the purpose of causing production of the documents. Though there is no difficulty in producing the certified copies of the documents by the defence for the purpose of proving that the witnesses did not have lands as claimed by them near about the place of occurrence, in my view, mere production of the documents may put the trial Court into difficulty in finding out which witness was in possession of which piece of land on the relevant date and further if the Revenue Inspector is examined, it will be reflected in his deposition as to which witness is in possession of which piece of land. Once the evidence is adduced before the Court, it becomes easier for the trial Court to appreciate the claim of the prosecution as well as the defence in deciding the issue. I, therefore, feel that no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution, if the Revenue Inspector is summoned for production of the documents.

5. I, therefore, allow the application, set aside the impugned order and direct that the Revenue Inspector, Kelua Circle will be summoned to produce the documents mentioned in the petition. The learned counsel appearing for the informant submitted that the case has unnecessarily lingered for a considerable length of period at the instance of the petitioner and considering such submission, it is further directed that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge shall take immediate steps to summon the Revenue Inspector, Kelua Circle and examination of the Revenue Inspector shall be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order.

The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.