IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.28490 OF 2008 1. BHAGWAN PRASAD SAH, SON OF LATE MAHADEO SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKBALURA, POLICE STATION REYAPAKAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI 2. JAWAHAR RAI, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKBALUA, POLICE STATION REYAPAKAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI …………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. ARUN KUMAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAJDEO SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BARANTI, POLICE STATION HAJIPUR, DISTRICT HAJIPUR ……………………………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES ********** FOR THE PETITIONERS :- MR. AMISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE O.P. NO. 2 :- MS. ANURADHA SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. RAM ANURAG SINGH, A.P.P. ********** 2 19/07/2011 Heard Counsel for the parties. This application has been filed for expunging the evidence of PWs. 2, 5, 7 and 9 in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1982 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. IV, Hajipur. While leading their defence, it was specifically stated on behalf of the accused persons/petitioners that there were three cassettes which would show that the petitioners were not involved in the alleged murder. The cassettes were played in the Court and thereafter, the defence witnesses identified the voices of the accused. The Court allowed the application for recall of PWs. 2, 5, 7 and 9. The informant moved this Court by filing a quashing application. The Court stayed the order of recall 2 of witnesses. In 1989, the case was withdrawn. Thereafter, the cassettes were missing from the judicial records. This Court finds that it is very odd that the cassettes which were exhibited were stolen from the records or have disappeared from the custody of the Court. It appears that no steps were taken against the person In-charge of the Court at the relevant time or the person In-charge of the records of the case. It is a serious matter as it involves the right of liberty of a man. The evidentiary value of the cassettes would be a different matter altogether but to allow them to disappear from the Court custody is indeed very serious. Obviously, the “disappearing act” has been done with the connivance with one or the another party. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the defence witnesses were produced along with the cassettes and have categorically stated that the voice belongs to X, Y or Z. This aspect of the matter would be considered during the argument of the trial. In the strange circumstances, and in the light of the affidavit filed on behalf of the informant, it would appear that in fact even before the cassettes were produced before the Court, attention of the witnesses were drawn to this fact that they are making a wrong statement 3 regarding the occurrence as the voice recorded in the cassettes would indicate otherwise. In that view of the matter, cross-examination of the witnesses would serve no useful purpose as the defence has already drawn the attention of the witnesses to this fact. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )