HC finds trial judge’s explanation unfounded, orders probe

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Faridabad District and Sessions Judge to conduct an inquiry into the disappearance of annexures filed by an accused during the trial proceedings in a rape case. The direction came after Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri rejected as “unfounded” the explanation offered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge concerned.

Justice Puri made it clear that the justification advanced by the Additional District and Sessions Judge — that there was no need for a second certified copy since the petitioner already had one — could not hold ground. “If a document was there on record and it is not available now, then it becomes a serious issue,” Justice Puri observed.

The direction came during the proceedings in the rape case registered on June 23, 2016, at Faridabad women police station, in which the petitioner is an accused.

During the stage of framing of charges, the petitioner had filed written submissions on March 16, 2022, along with certain annexures. The trial court had taken these on record. Later, the petitioner moved an application before the trial court, seeking copies of the annexures previously submitted.

But the trial court dismissed the application. It was stated by the Additional District and Sessions Judge that there was no need to take another certified copy once the petitioner had stated that he had received the certified copies.

The petitioner through counsel Salil Dev Singh Bali approached the high court, following which an order was passed on November 8, 2024, calling for a report from the Faridabad District and Sessions Judge, along with an explanation from the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

Referring to the report, Justice Puri said it was stated by the Additional District and Sessions Judge that the matter was inquired into from the Ahlmad, as well as from the office file. It was found that “there were no annexures”.

Justice Puri said the explanation that the petitioner should not seek another certified copy was not justified because non-availability of a previously available document was a serious issue. “Such kind of explanation given by the Additional District and Sessions Judge is unfounded,” the court observed.

Adjourning the matter to July 3, it directed the District and Sessions Judge to conduct an inquiry into the issue, also ensuring that the petitioner was heard in the process.