Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 986 (RAJ)

Rahul Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-04

KHEM CHAND SHARMA

body2005
Judgment Khem Chand Sharma, J.-The petitioner who is facing trial in Sessions Case No.9/2003 in the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Sati) Rajasthan and Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, being aggrieved of question put to him during his examination under Section 313, CrPC in relation to the evidence of PW-20 Ajay Gupta, filed an application before the trial judge to amend the question. Learned trial judge vide his order dated 15th March, 2005 has rejected that application. Feeling aggrieved of the order of the trial judge, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking direction to the trial judge to amend the question in accordance with the evidence of PW-20 Ajay Gupta. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the statement of PW-20 Ajay Gupta as well as the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 313, CrPC. 3. Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in the statement of Ajay Gupta, PW-20, there is no mention that on the day of the occurrence the deceased was talking with petitioner Rahul Sharma. Thus, there was no occasion for the learned trial judge to put such question to the petitioner at the time of his examination under Section 313, CrPC Mr. Gupta has contended that if the question is allowed to remain as it is, it will adversely affect the case of the petitioner. 4. It is no doubt true that the object of the Section 313, CrPC is to afford to the accused an opportunity of showing that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution which may be prima facie against him, is not true or is consistent with his innocence. The opportunity must be real and adequate. The accused must be questioned separately about each material circumstance which is intended to be used against him. The whole object of this section is to afford the accused a fair and proper opportunity of explaining circumstances which appear against him and the questions must be fair and must be couched in a form which an ignorant or illiterate person may be able to appreciate and understand. It is the duty of the trial Court to ask the accused in full details for a proper reply as to the offence alleged in respect of which the accused has to face trial. 5. It is the duty of the trial Court to ask the accused in full details for a proper reply as to the offence alleged in respect of which the accused has to face trial. 5. If the question under challenge is gone into in the light of settled legal proposition aforesaid and in the light of the statement of PW-20 Ajay Gupta, I am of the considered view that this question requires amendment as there is no mention in the statement of PW-20 Ajay Gupta that the petitioner Rahul Sharma, at the time of the incident, was talking with the deceased. 6. In the result, this petition is allowed and the trial judge is directed to amend the disputed question in the light of the statement of PW-20 Ajay Gupta.