1 2025:CGHC:60007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3747 of 2025 1 - Sunil Namdeo S/o Late Narmada Prasad Namdeo Aged About 45 Years R/o Anand Vatika V.I.P. Road, Mana Camp Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S. Mana Camp Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Durgesh Rawte S/o P.K. Rawte, Aged About 40 Years R/o P.S. Raipur Mana Camp Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/12/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present matter is heard finally. 2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 2 29.11.2024 whereby the learned Special Judge (Atrocities ) Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) rejected the application filed by the applicant for displaying the CCTV video footage. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Durgesh Rawte has made an F.I.R. against the present petitioner for the offence committed under 186, 189, 353, 294, 506 and section 3(1) n] /k which is registered at crime no. 46/2021 dated 21.03.2021 and the matter has been registered as special criminal case no. 19/2021 before Special Judge Atrocity Raipur in which the petitioner is facing trial. The police after completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet and list of witnesses before the Learned Lower Court below dated 09.06.2021 wherein the prosecution has not collected the pen drive, C.C.TV Footage place of the incident which is resident place of the present petitioner. The learned lower court below has started the trial wherein the trial the petitioner prayed for the additional evidence which has not been collected by the police during the investigation. The petitioner has filed the application under section 65 (B) of the evidence before the trial court along with the affidavit the copy of application dated 09.10.2024 and certificate dated 21.07.2022 under section 65 (B) of the evidence act. The petitioner has filed petition before this Hon'ble Court matter was registered as Cr.M.P. No. 3086/2024 wherein the Hon'ble Court on dated 19.11.2024 after hearing of the case directed the petitioner to produce the evidence before the court and also the matter is fixed for recording of statement of 3 the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and also for defense witness the petitioner can very well utilized the so called video as his defense by examining the person and also the videographer who has recorded the same subject to the following the due procedure of law, this opportunity is already available with the petitioner and passed the order incompliance of order dated 19.11.2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 3086/2024 the petitioner has moved an application along with affidavit before the trial court and the trial court rejected the application on dated 29.11.2024. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner has filed the application in compliance of certificate issued by the authority because if the same will be rejected then he would not able to prove his case and also the right of defense will be violated. The respondent no. 2 in his a F.I.R. has made a complaint in which nothing has been done and also in the court statement u/s 162 Cr.P.C. he has made contradiction wherein he has also stated that the pen drive and video footage is not to be shown before the court because the footage has no relevancy which is not correct because the pen drive and C.C.TV. footage it clearly show that the incident was not happen. As per Hon'ble Supreme Court in one of the judgement party Tomaso Bruno & Anr V/s State of U.P. 2015(7) SC 178 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly stated that "Evidence Act, 1872-Secs. 65A 65B- Electronic Evidence-Production of electronic evidence is relevant to establish guilt of the accused or liability of the defendant-Held, 4 contents of the electronic record may be admitted if conditions provided in Section 65B is complied with-Secondary evidence of the contents of the document can also be led under Sec. 65 of the Evidence Act-Scientific and Electronic evidence is of great help to the investigating Agency". The similar fact is in the case of the petitioner. At the time of incident the C.C.T.V. footage is a best evidence to prove any case because the C.C.T.V. footage on the date of evidence was not collected of the prosecution, police although it was knowledge that C.C.T.V. footage would clear the case whether the incident happen or not also the petitioner wants to present the C.C.T.V. footage for his defense, also it is right of the party to show the material, filed the document before the trial court to put his defense, it is pertinent mention that he has no any injury receive he has not filed any medical in support of his complaint. The respondent no. 2 with malafidely intention he has not produced the C.C.TV. footage because he is the In-Charge of the P.S. Mana where the F.I.R. has lodged and would not able to prove the case. 5. Learned State Counsel raised an objection to the present petition and has prayed for its dismissal on the ground that the same is baseless and not necessary for the just adjudication of the case. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Perusal of record shows that the present petition is directed against the order whereby the trial court dismissed the application 5 moved on behalf of the accused seeking recall and re- examination of prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 Durgesh Rawat, PW-3 Somitra Bhoy, and PW-11 Divya Sharma, purportedly in the light of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, in CRMP No. 3086/2024 (Sunil Namdev v. State of Chhattisgarh & another) dated 19.11.2024. 8. From a careful perusal of the record, it is evident that this Court, while modifying the earlier order dated 09.10.2021, only granted liberty to the accused to move an appropriate application before the trial court for displaying a video in his defence, subject to compliance with the mandatory requirements of certification under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The High Court did not issue any direction for recall or re-examination of already examined prosecution witnesses. 9. The trial court has rightly observed that no application was moved by the accused at the appropriate stage for displaying the video evidence in defence, and that the case had already reached an advanced stage, with the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC having been recorded on 18.11.2024. At such a belated stage, the application seeking recall of prosecution witnesses was found to be misconceived and beyond the scope of the liberty granted by this Court. 10. The trial court further took note of the fact that the prosecution witnesses sought to be recalled had already been examined 6 earlier and that the High Court order dated 19.11.2024 does not mandate their re-examination. The dismissal of the application was, therefore, based on a correct appreciation of facts and law. 11. This Court finds that the impugned order is reasoned, well- considered, and in strict conformity with the directions of this Court. No illegality, perversity, or material irregularity is made out warranting interference. The attempt of the accused to reopen concluded stages of the trial without any specific direction from the High Court has rightly been rejected. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima