Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1257 (MP)

Shankar Singh v. State of M. P.

2015-12-17

ALOK VERMA

body2015
ORDER 1. This criminal revision filed under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District – Ujjain in Sessions Trial No.123/2015 dated 28.10.2015. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that earlier charge was framed against the present applicant under section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, subsequently, after recording of 5 prosecution witnesses, learned trial Court opined that charge should be modified and charges under sections 354 and 506B of IPC should also be framed. Accordingly, charges were altered by the impugned order dated 28.10.2015 under sections 354 and 506B of IPC and then under section 217 of CrPC, it was directed by the Trial Court to recall PW1, who was the prosecutrix and PW4 Suresingh. So far as prosecution witnesses No.2, 3, 5 and 6 are concerned, they were not recalled by the trial Court. 3. Counsel for the applicant submits that he has only a short prayer to make in this case. According to him, after alteration of charge, all the prosecution witnesses should be recalled and he should be given an opportunity to cross examine them. 4. Counsel for the State supported the impugned order and prays that this revision be dismissed. 5. I have gone through the provisions of section 217 of CrPC. 6. It is true that provisions of section 217 of CrPC gives discretion to the trial Court to recall only those witnesses who are necessary after alteration of charge and also, if in his opinion, recalling of certain witnesses are not necessary, then the trial Court should give reason. 7. However, in this case, no reasons were given. Counsel for the applicant filed copies of the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded so far apart from PW1, who is the prosecutrix, PW2, who is father of the prosecutrix, PW3, who is mother of the prosecutrix, PW5 and PW6 are the Investigating Officers. 8. In my considered opinion, all these witnesses are to be recalled for cross examination after alteration of charge, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from irregularity. In view of the aforesaid, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 8. In my considered opinion, all these witnesses are to be recalled for cross examination after alteration of charge, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order suffers from irregularity. In view of the aforesaid, this revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is directed that all the prosecution witnesses examined so far should be recalled and opportunity be granted to the counsel for defence to cross examine the witnesses. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision stands disposed of.