- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10363 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MANJUNATHA N, S/O NAGARAJ.N AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT 02, ANGADI RAMCHANDR BANGARPET, THUMATAGERE, THUMATAGERE, PO MAGINDHI, DIST: KOLAR, KARNATAKA - 563 114. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHITHA P. SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION REP. BY SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. MANGALAMMA.P D/O LATE POOJANARASAIAH, AGED MAJOR, NO.18, 13TH CROSS, HOYSALANAGARA, VISHWANEEDUM POST, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 13.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED FOR TIME BEING) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.05.2025, PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL IN SPL.C.NO.469/2017, REJECTING THE PRAYER MADE BY HIM TO MARK PHOTOSTAT COPY OF DRIVING LICENSE AND PHOTOCOPY OF PERSON ADMITTED BY HER DURING CROSS EXAMINATION AND MAY BE PLEASED TO PERMIT HIM TO MARK THE SAID ADMITTED DOCUMENTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 assailing the order of the Sessions Judge wherein the learned Judge has declined to mark two documents confronted by the accused during the cross-examination of the complainant. 2. Facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner is presently facing criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 376, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 504, 506, 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During the course of trial, while cross-examining the victim (P.W.1), the petitioner/accused attempted to confront her with a Xerox copy of a driving licence, and again sought to confront a photograph during further cross-examination on 07.04.2024. However, the learned Special Public Prosecutor objected to the marking of such documents on the ground that they were mere photocopies and had not been proved in accordance with Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Upholding the objection, the learned Sessions Judge declined to permit the marking of the Xerox copy of the driving licence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has vehemently argued that the documents sought to be confronted are directly relevant to the issues involved in the present case. It is his submission that despite the victim’s alleged admission - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 during cross-examination, the trial court refused to admit the Xerox copy of the driving licence on record, thereby causing serious prejudice to the defence of the petitioner/accused. According to the petitioner, exclusion of such documents has adversely affected his right to confront the witness effectively and to substantiate his defence. 4. It is further contended that the two documents were confronted only to demonstrate that the victim was already a married woman, and therefore the prosecution theory that the accused had a physical relationship with the complainant under the false pretext of marriage is rendered untenable. The defence sought to substantiate this crucial contention by relying on the driving licence and the photograph. However, on a careful examination of the cross-examination of P.W.1, this Court finds that the complainant did not admit the genuineness or correctness of the Xerox copy. On the contrary, during her further cross-examination on 10.01.2025, the complainant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 categorically disputed the document and further volunteered an explanation that in the original driving licence, certain particulars such as “son of,” “daughter of,” and “wife of” were not found. Once there is a clear denial of the contents of the Xerox copy and an explanation regarding the original document, the petitioner/accused cannot insist that the disputed photocopy should be marked in evidence. It is trite law that a document confronted to a witness can be marked only when the witness admits its contents. The same principle applies to the photograph confronted, which was objected to by the prosecution and which, in any case, was not relevant to the issues in question. 5. The record also discloses that the petitioner/accused has made an attempt to demonstrate that the complainant is married to one Lakshman R. If indeed the petitioner seeks to substantiate this crucial defence, there is no bar under law for him to adduce independent rebuttal evidence. The Code of Criminal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 Procedure as well as the Evidence Act clearly permit the accused to lead defence evidence in support of his case. Nothing prevents the petitioner from producing primary or secondary evidence of marriage, or from summoning the concerned records, if such evidence is available. In fact, if the petitioner is able to secure a certified copy of any document showing that the complainant is already married, he would be entitled to adduce such evidence in defence, and the trial court would be bound to consider the same in accordance with law. 6. Even before this Court, however, the petitioner has not placed on record the so-called crucial documents on which he is heavily relying. The petition is conspicuously silent as to the precise relevancy and admissibility of the documents in question. In the absence of such material, this Court cannot, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, re-examine the admissibility, credibility, or relevancy of mere Xerox copies that have already been rightly rejected by the trial court. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 remedy available to the petitioner lies in producing legally admissible documents during the stage of defence evidence, and not in seeking to compel the trial court to mark disputed and unproved photocopies at the stage of cross-examination. 7. Therefore, despite the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds no infirmity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the marking of Xerox copies. The reliance placed by the petitioner on certain judgments is misplaced, as the facts and circumstances therein are not comparable to the present case. This Court is of the firm view that there shall be no impediment for the petitioner to produce and rely upon proper documents, if available, to substantiate the defence that the complainant was married, but the rejection of the Xerox copies by the trial court cannot be faulted. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32388 CRL.P No. 10363 of 2025 With the above observations, the captioned petition stands dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK