Balwant Singh Bisht @ Bablu Bisht vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another

Ravindra Maithani, J

The instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.01.2020 passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2017, State Vs. Balwant Singh

by the court of Special Judge, POCSO (Fast Track Court)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haldwani, Nanital (for short ‘the trial’). By

the impugned order, the request of the petitioner seeking copy of CCTV footages was declined.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The trial is proceeding against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2) IPC r/w 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012. In the trial, Investigating Officer S.I. Lata Bisht was examined as PW-12. Her examination was recorded on various dates. On

18.01.2020, when her examination-in-chief was initially recorded, an application 101 (B) was moved by the petitioner. According to it, though,

petitioner was provided CCTV footage (video files), but when he watched those footages, it was revealed that DVD of 13 CCTV footage (video

files), as mentioned at Sr. No.16 of the CFSL report dated 27.04.2018, was not provided to the petitioner, therefore, a request was made that those

CCTV footages may also be given to the petitioner.

It was heard and by the impugned order dated 18.01.2020, learned court below held that on 30.08.2019, the CCTV footages and DVD had already

been provided to the petitioner. He also had endorsed it on the application. Various dates had already been fixed in the case and now in order to delay

the proceedings, the application has been moved and accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Learned court below also observed that there are directions to decide the case within six months.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner has had no intention to protract the trial. In order to cross-examine PW-12 Lata

Bisht, all the CCTV footages were required. Though, petitioner was provided CCTV footage but one DVD was not provided, which is mentioned at

Sr. No.16 of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (for short ‘CFSL’) report dated 25.04.2018. It is submitted that fair trial also demands

that CCTV footage may be provided to him.

Learned State Counsel would submit that application has been rejected on the ground that perhaps petitioner is trying to prolong the trial.

Petitioner has specifically averred in his application that he had been provided with CCTV footages, but, he has been specific about the CCTV

footages which is mentioned at Sr. No.16 of CFSL report, that it was not provided to him. It is not stated by the prosecution that CCTV footages,

which has been sought by the petitioner was, in fact, also provided to the petitioner. Petitioner has also filed a copy of the evidence of PW-12 S.I.

Lata Bisht, which reveals that he has spoken about the CCTV footages.

Without much discussion, this Court is of the view that in order to provide an opportunity of fair trial to the petitioner, he should have been given a

copy of the CCTV footages, which he had sought for. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner ought to have been allowed.

The petition is allowed.

CCTV footage as mentioned in the application dated 18.01.2020 may be provided to the petitioner and the trial should proceed accordingly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner would like to cross examine PW-12 S.I. Lata Bisht in the light of the CCTV

footages.

After giving the copies of all CCTV footages, the petitioner shall be provided one opportunity to further cross-examine PW12 S.I. Lata Bisht on

the aspect of CCTV footages.