Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 150 (UTT)

Jaswinder Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2015-03-18

U.C.DHYANI

body2015
Judgment (Oral) The applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the order dated 13.01.2015, passed by learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in Sessions Trial no. 260 of 2013, captioned as State vs Jasvinder Singh, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506 of IPC, whereby application 56-B dated 16.12.2014, moved on behalf of the accused-applicant, has been dismissed by said court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent State and perused the order under challenge. 3. Law operates in tangibles, and not in intangibles. The law is enacted on the basis of harsh realities of life. Even the legislative presumptions are based upon such hard facts. It is the fundamental law of the land that an accused should be given sufficient opportunity to defend his case, but such opportunity cannot be stretched to any unimaginable limits. An accused can seek the protection of Article 21 of the Constitution of India so long as he has not been provided an opportunity to defend himself. An accused cannot argue, under the cloak of 'Right to Life and Personal Liberty' that he should continue to be given an opportunity to defend himself, so long as he likes it. 4. In the instant case, seven opportunities were already given by the trial court to the accused-applicant to defend himself. One pay, the accused dreams something, and that dream is - if he is able to bring his mother-in-law in the witness box, the same may be beneficial to him. Such a story can be fathomed only by a person, like accused-applicant. Law is not fancy. Fanciful claims are not accepted by any court. 5. There is yet another surprising fact which has emerged during the course of arguments before this Court. The name of witness was not disclosed by the accused before the trial court. He thought that the name of such defence witness shall only be disclosed before the High Court. Can a reasonable person visualise such a situation in law, much less criminal jurisprudence, in which one can keep the court guessing? The accused does not disclose the name of the witness in his application paper no. 56-B before the trial court and discloses the same, like a suspense thriller, in the High Court itself. Can a reasonable person visualise such a situation in law, much less criminal jurisprudence, in which one can keep the court guessing? The accused does not disclose the name of the witness in his application paper no. 56-B before the trial court and discloses the same, like a suspense thriller, in the High Court itself. Such a situation can only be fancied by a person, who is an accused of heinous crimes. Law enjoins upon the applicant, who seeks favour of the Court to approach the Court with clean hands, which has not been done in the instant case. The accused-applicant moved such an application only when the final arguments were partly heard by the court below. Law never operates in vacuum. The accused-applicant could move an application only in the periphery assigned to him under the enactment prescribed for the purpose, and not beyond that. 6. In such a situation, this Court finds no infirmity in the order impugned. It is nothing but dilly dallying on the part of the accused-applicant. 7. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the applicant, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the applicant today itself on payment of usual charges. 9. A copy of this order be also sent to the court below for information.