Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 35 (JHR)

Pawe Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-01-17

N.DHINAKAR

body2006
ORDER N. Dhinakar, C.J. 1. This revision is against the order of the Court below refusing to recall two witnesses, namely, Shankar Man to and Bali Mahto, for cross-examination who were earlier examined in chief as PWs 4 and 5 respectively on 1.4.1999. 2. According to the prosecution, PW 4 is the person, who had seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner and PW 5 was a witness, who attested the seizure list. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since on 1.4.1999 the counsel appearing for the petitioner was not present in Court the aforesaid two witnesses were not cross examined and the trial Court ought: to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to call those two witnesses for cross-examination and refusal of such prayer of the petitioner has caused prejudice to him. 4. I have heard Mr. T.N. Verma learned APP on the above contention and perused the order of the trial Court. 5. The order of the trial Court shows that on 1.4.1999, Shankar Mahto and Ball Mahto were examined in chief as PWs 4 and 5 and inspite of the repeated calls, the defence counsel did not appear to cross-examine the two witnesses and on the contrary the petitioner himself cross-examined Bali Mahto, PW 5, on that clay. It could also be seen that, later on when the case stood adjourned for examination of other witnesses, the counsel appeared and cross-examined those witnesses (total in 13) produced by the prosecution. The petitioner did not file any petition during those dates of hearing to recall PWs 4 and 5 for the purpose of cross-examination and had come out with the present petition only at the fag end of the trial. The petitioner was not even able to give any reason as to why he did not file a petition before the trial Court on the subsequent dates of hearing, when other witnesses were examined and cross-examined for not filing a petition for recalling PWs 4 and 5 for the purpose of cross-examination. The petitioner was not even able to give any reason as to why he did not file a petition before the trial Court on the subsequent dates of hearing, when other witnesses were examined and cross-examined for not filing a petition for recalling PWs 4 and 5 for the purpose of cross-examination. The present petition at the belated stage, therefore, shows that the petitioner is only interested in protracting the proceedings by trying to recall the above two witnesses and the trial Court was, therefore, justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, since the Sessions case before the Court cannot be allowed to be protracted by the petitioner, who is an accused, on such frivolous petition. The revision is, accordingly dismissed.