Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 763 (ORI)

Siria Gudu v. State Of Odisha

2018-08-27

S.K.SAHOO

body2018
JUDGMENT S.K. Sahoo, J. - Heard Mr. D.P. Dhal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Karunakar Nayak, learned counsel for the State. 2. In this application under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioners who are the accused persons in S.T. Case No. 97 of 2014 pending in the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack have challenged the impugned order dated 20.06.2018 passed by the learned trial Court in rejecting the petition filed on their behalf under section 311 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for recalling P.W.13 Dr. Manoj Kumar Sethi to prove the injury report of petitioner no.12 Mahara Guru. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when P.W.13 who was examined in chief on 07.06.2018, cross-examined and discharged, at that time inadvertently the accused persons could not prove the injury report of petitioner no.12 which was available in the case records. It is contended that in order to prove the defence plea, proving of such injury report is very much necessary. 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned trial Court was of the view that if at all the injury report of petitioner no.12 Mahara Guru is necessary for defence, they can prove the same from their side by issuing notice to P.W.13 through Court during the time of defence evidence and further held that the further cross-examination of P.W.13 to prove the injury report is not necessary for just decision of this case. 5. It is stated that in the meantime after closure of the prosecution evidence, the case is posted for the accused statement to 28.08.2018. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed the evidence of P.W.13 as well as produced the injury report of petitioner no.12 Mahara Guru which indicates that on police requisition on 19.10.2013, P.W.13 Dr. Manoj Kumar Sethi examined him on the very day and issued the injury report which also indicates that the said petitioner has received the injuries on his vertex as well as on the right knee. The date of occurrence is on 19.10.2013. When the medical examination report of the petitioner no.12 by P.W.13 Dr. Manoj Kumar Sethi examined him on the very day and issued the injury report which also indicates that the said petitioner has received the injuries on his vertex as well as on the right knee. The date of occurrence is on 19.10.2013. When the medical examination report of the petitioner no.12 by P.W.13 Dr. Manoj Kumar Sethi is available in the case records and inadvertently the defence counsel could not prove the same through P.W.13 and it is a material document to prove the defence plea, the observation of the learned trial Court that it is not necessary for the just decision of this case is not proper and justified. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the State, in the interest of justice, I think it proper to direct the learned trial Court to summon P.W.13 for further cross-examination for the limited purpose in giving an opportunity to the petitioners to prove the injury report of petitioner no.12 Mahara Guru in accordance with law. 8. It is needless to say that the prosecution is at liberty to put any question on the injury report of petitioner no.12 which is sought to be proved by the defence. 9. Since the case is posted for accused statement tomorrow as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if a petition is filed to defer the same, the learned trial Court shall pass appropriate order in differing the recording the accused statement for a week and in the meantime, take necessary steps in ensuring the attendance of P.W.13 Dr. Manoj Kumar Sethi for the purpose of further cross-examination by the defence. Accordingly, the CRLMC application is allowed.