1 2025:CGHC:18957 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1378 of 2025 1 - Rakesh Kurrey @ Hasan S/o Jainarayan Kurrey, Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khola, Near Hanuman Mandir, Ps Abhanpur, Raipur Chhattisgarh Current Address Village Bhathagaon, Busp Colony, Block No. 06, House No. 21, Ps Purani Basti, Raipur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh. ............. (In Jail) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Ps Abhanpur, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mrs. Pragya Shrivastava, Deputy G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 25/04/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) for exercising the inherent powers to remove the inadmissible contents from the deposition of P.W. 5 and P.W. 14, recorded in the trial of the Sessions Case No. 165/2023, pending before the learned 8th Additional VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.07.07 20:05:11 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Raipur. The petitioner prayed for the following reliefs in the petition:- “It is therefore humbly and respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and remove the inadmissible content in terms of Sections 25 r/w. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, from the depositions of PWs: 5 & 14 in the trial pending before the learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG) in a Sessions Case No.: 165/2023, at this very stage, in the larger interest of justice.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in Sessions Case No. 165/2023, pending before the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, for the offences under Section 302, 201, 120-B and 34 of the I.P.C. In the trial of the case, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is being recorded, and P.W. 5 Deepak Agrawal has been examined on 24-11-2023, and P.W. 14 Dharmendra Patkar has been examined on 05-10-2024, before the learned trial court. They, being the witnesses of the memorandum statement and seizure made from the accused persons, deposed accordingly. On 17-02-2025, an application was filed by the petitioner/accused before the learned trial court for removing the inadmissible part of the memorandum statement from the deposition of P.W. 4 Deepak Agrawal and P.W. 14 Dharmendra Patkar. It is stated in the application that the inadmissible part of the memorandum statement has been incorporated, which may prejudice 3 the outcome of the trial, and the same is necessary to be removed from their deposition sheet. The application filed by the petitioner has been disposed of by the learned trial court vide order dated 05-04-2025, holding that the admissibility of the evidence of the witnesses and the inadmissible part of the deposition would be considered at the time of final decision of the case. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the inculpatory part of the memorandum statement is inadmissible in evidence as provided under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the same should not be incorporated in the deposition sheet of the witnesses. The inadmissible part of the memorandum statement is incorporated in the deposition, which does affect the defence of the accused, and should not be made a part thereof. The learned trial court should have taken the corrective measure immediately after the deposition was over, but the same has not been corrected. He would further submit that the alleged part of the memorandum statement may create undue influence on the occasion of the final judgment unless the inadmissible part of the deposition is removed. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Randeep Singh @ Rana v. State of Haryana” Laws (SC) 2024 (11) (55), and “Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re v. The State of Andhra Pradesh” reported in 2021 SCC online SC 329. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes and submits that the deposition of the witnesses is recorded in accordance 4 with the law. The witnesses are memorandum and seizure witnesses, and they deposed whatever evidence was collected by the prosecution agency in their presence. The part of the memorandum statement is not reiterated, but the contents of their evidence is recorded. The evidence of the witnesses is recorded as per the law, and there is no irregularity or illegality in it. Further, the apprehension of the petitioner that the evidence of the P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 would prejudice the case of the petitioner/accused is baseless, and the learned trial court itself stated in the impugned order that the admissibility of the evidence is to be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case. it is not the case that immediately after recording evidence of the witnesses, the petitioner/accused has raised an objection, but the objection is raised much later. The evidence of P.W. 5 is recorded on 24-11-2023, and P.W. 14 is recorded on 05-10-2024, whereas the application is filed on 17-02- 2025, which is afterthought. Therefore, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that P.W. 5 and P.W. 14 are the memorandum and seizure witnesses, and the contents of the memorandum statement, which is inadmissible, have been reiterated in their deposition, and the ultimate outcome of the trial may be prejudiced. He prayed for the deletion of that part of their deposition. He apprehended that if it is not deleted, it would make it admissible as the 5 same would be a part of the evidence. From perusal of the deposition sheet of the P.W. 5 and P.W. 14, it appears that the witnesses have deposed whatever evidence was collected in their presence. It is not part of the memorandum, but the collection of evidence. These witnesses have been cross-examined by the defence counsel in detail, and sufficient opportunity was provided for their cross-examination. Further, the objection has been raised after a long delay of their examination, and once the examination of the witnesses is over, no part of their deposition can be deleted or added. With respect to the admissibility part of the evidence of these two witnesses, the learned trial court already said in the impugned order that the admissibility of these witnesses is to be considered at the time of final adjudication of the case. There appears to be no prejudice to the petitioner/accused from that part of their evidence which warrants deletion. 7. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner does not help him as the facts and consideration of the case of “Randeep Singh @ Rana” (supra) and “Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re” (supra) are distinguishable from the facts and consideration of the present case. In “Randeep Singh @ Rana” case, the conviction was under challenge, and the evidence of police officer P.W. 27, who conducted the investigation, was the subject matter. In the matter of “Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re”, the consideration was to decide the objection on the same very moment when it was raised. This is also not the case here because at the time of the 6 evidence, no objection was raised by the petitioner/accused, and it is raised after much time has lapsed. 8. Therefore, this court does not find any perversity or illegality that warrants interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved