Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 133 (UTT)

PAPPU SINGH v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2015-03-11

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 10.10.2014, passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial no. 183 of 2010, State vs Sonu and others, under Section 304B IPC, relating to police station, Khanpur, District Haridwar, whereby said Court allowed the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and recalled the prosecution witness (PW4) for further cross-examination. 2.In the instant case, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of accused persons with a prayer to recall PW4 Chaman Lal, father of deceased, to cross-examine him on only two points – (a) whether the victim was literate, semiliterate or illiterate and (b) regarding an agreement whereby the agricultural land was given by PW4 for the purpose of cultivation to respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, son-in-law and father of son-in-law of PW4 Chaman Lal. Such application was allowed by the trial court on payment of costs. PW4 was directed to be summoned for cross-examination on the aforesaid two points. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the complainant. 3.In this case, as per the order impugned, PW4 stated in his examination-in-chief, that his daughter was semiliterate, in the sense, that although she did not know how to read and write, but could append her signatures. PW4 also stated before the trial court, in his examination-in-chief, that the suicide note was not written by his daughter, in as much as she attended school only upto Class II. Whereas PW5 also stated in the same vein, a document was filed on behalf of accused persons to show that the victim studied upto class VIII. Transfer certificate was filed on behalf the accused persons and, therefore, the accused persons wanted to cross-examine PW4 only on the point as to what was the educational qualification of the victim. 4. Whereas PW5 also stated in the same vein, a document was filed on behalf of accused persons to show that the victim studied upto class VIII. Transfer certificate was filed on behalf the accused persons and, therefore, the accused persons wanted to cross-examine PW4 only on the point as to what was the educational qualification of the victim. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing wrong in the impugned order so far as the summoning of PW4 for the purposes of ascertaining the educational qualification of the victim is concerned, for the same meets the requirement of Section 311 Cr.P.C. This Court finds that no interference is called for in the impugned order to the extent of permitting the accused persons to ask the question(s) regarding the educational qualification of the victim from PW4, victim’s father to know whether she was illiterate / semiliterate or literate. 5. But the summoning of PW4 for the purposes of asking question(s) on the agreement dated 29.05.2009, seems to be ill founded, in as much as this Court finds no relevance of such agreement to the facts of the instant case, in which the accused persons are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 304B IPC. The second question does not appear to be relevant and, therefore, PW4 ought not have been summoned for the purposes of cross-examination on this score. 6. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is, therefore, partly allowed. Whereas the summoning of PW4 for the purposes of ascertaining the truthfulness of the transfer certificate of the victim and her educational qualification seems to be justified, the subsequent part of the impugned order, whereby PW4 was summoned for recording his evidence in respect of ascertaining the correctness of agreement dated 29.05.2009 seems to be ill founded, as the same has no bearing on the merits of the case. The impugned order is interferrable only to this extent.