Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 42 (MP)

Rohan v. State of M. P.

2016-01-13

ALOK VERMA

body2016
ORDER 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Session Trial No.417/2008 dated 27.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 1.12.2015 whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the applicant’s learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the applicant’s prayer to call defence witness and alos denied time to file revision before this Court. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that present applicant is facing trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 417/2008. Statement of Investigating Officer, PW20, was recorded on 3.3.2011. During his cross examination, it was stated by the witness that he could not answer the questions put to him without case diary, therefore, recording of his statement was deferred. The Investigating Officer appeared before the Court on 29.10.2015 again without case diary, however, on that day, his cross examination was proceeded with and finally it was completed on 2.11.2015. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313 of CrPC on 21.11.2015. In the accused’s statement made under section 313 of CrPC, present applicant stated made under section 313 of CrPC., present applicant stated that he wanted to examine only one defence witness, Vinay and he also undertook to produce the witness on his own without any help of summons issued by the Court. However, witness was not produced by him and another witness was produced in his place. Thereafter, present applicant filed two separate applications by which he sought to examine three private witness-Manohar, Hamid and Vinay and he also sought to call Head Moharrir of the Police Station, Bhanwarkua and Police Station, Juni Indore with cirminal record of the deceased Dheeraj. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judges proceeded to dismiss the application vide impugned order dated 1.12.2015 on the ground that present applicant only wanted to examine one witness Vinay as mentioned by him in his statement made under section 313 of CrPC and now, he has given list of two more witness, while none of th edefence witnesses remained present on the fixed date. He further observed that the matter is pending for the last 7 years and according to his observations, present applicant wanted to linger the matter on some pretext. 4. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the applications filed by the present applicant. 5. He further observed that the matter is pending for the last 7 years and according to his observations, present applicant wanted to linger the matter on some pretext. 4. I have gone through the impugned order as well as the applications filed by the present applicant. 5. As stated above, the last prosecution witness, the Investigating Officer appeared on 3.3.2012 when his statement was partly recorded. Recording of his statement was completed only on 2.11.2015, therefore, the trial Court took almost 8 months to complete evidence of one withness, therefore, the reason for delay cannot be fastened on the defence. Further, it is right of the accused to produce defence witness on his own only when he sought summons/bailable warrants for calling the witness, permission of the Court is required. Sufficient opportunity should be granted to the defence to produce the witness, therefore, this revision deserves to be allowed and accordingly, allowed. The order passed by learned trial Court is hereby set aside. 6. It is directed that private defence witness as enumerated in the application filed by the defence would be produced by the defence counsel on his own without any process from the Court. Howerver, Head Moharrir of Police Station, Juni Indore and Bhanwarkua with criminl record of the deceased shall be called with aid of summons/warrants issued by the Court. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the criminal revision stands disposed of.