Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 69 (RAJ)

Salman Khan v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-05

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482, CrPC the petitioners have challenged the order dated 210.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur (for short “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 207/99, Whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant criminal misc. petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the statement of PW.17 Angadlal. 3. The facts emerging from the record are that the petitioners are facing trial since 1999 for the offences under Sections 143, 144, 148, 201 read with Section 149, IPC, Section 27 of Arms Act and Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act . The matter came up at the stage of statement of accused under Section 313, CrPC. When the incriminating evidence was put to the accused petitioners they objected the question Nos. 17 and 18 on the ground that PW. 17 Angadlal, Forester appeared as prosecution witness and made statement on 01.2003, thereafter he was cross-examined by the Counsel appearing for the petitioners but the cross-examination was deferred at the request of Counsel for the petitioners and thereafter, witness PW. 17 Angadlal expired, therefore, his further cross-examination could not be undertaken. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that what PW. 17 Angadlal stated cannot be incriminating evidence against the petitioners and, therefore, according to learned Counsel, question Nos. 17 and 18 be deleted. The trial Court by an elaborate and well reasoned order dismissed the application. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied on decisions of Honble Supreme Court in V.M. Mathew vs. V.S. Sharma & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 109; in Banwari Lal & Anr. vs. State, AIR 1956 All 385 and a decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Nandram Khemraj vs. State of M.P. & Anr., 1995 CrLJ 1270 . 5. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State supported the order impugned. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties. 7. Form the perusal of the record it appears that PW . 17 Angadlal was subjected to lengthy cross-examination and on all material points it appears that he has been subjected to cross-examination. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties. 7. Form the perusal of the record it appears that PW . 17 Angadlal was subjected to lengthy cross-examination and on all material points it appears that he has been subjected to cross-examination. After recording the cross-examination of around 1 and half pages, Counsel for the petitioners sought adjournment on the ground that PW . 17 Angadlal earlier made statement in some other case and Counsel stated that he wishes to cross-examine the witness with reference to that statement after obtaining the certified copy of that statement. The adjournment was opposed by the Public Prosecutor appearing before the trial Court, yet in the interest of justice, it appears that the trial Court deferred the further cross-examination relating to certified copy of the statement of that witness which the Counsel intended to obtain and file. Thus, what the witness stated in examination-in-chief has already been subjected to cross-examination. The Judgment relied on by the Counsel for the petitioners turns on their own facts and are of no help to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the order impugned would result in manifest injustice or failure of justice. It also cannot be said that by the order impugned any abuse of the process of the Court has resulted. More so, the trial Court has left open to the petitioners to raise objection in this regard at the time of hearing of final arguments. 8. In the circumstances therefore, no case for interference is made out in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, CrPC. The criminal misc. petition is dismissed accordingly. Stay application also stands dismissed.