JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred, laying challenge to the order dated 13.08.2019, passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), whereby it has refused to accede to the joint request of the petitioners so also of the CBI to close the evidence of Ms. Amber B. Carr, FBI expert, USA, subject to the outcome of the SLP filed on 22.05.2019, which the Central Bureau of Investigation has filed against the judgment dated 22.05.2018, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Petition No.2240/2019. 2. Succinctly stated, facts pertinent to the present case are that a case has been registered against the petitioners for offences under Sections 364, 302/120 B IPC, which is pending before the Trial Court since 2011. Petitioners are behind bars since then. 3. Cbi had given list of 298 witnesses in three stages, out of which 196 have been examined. Prosecution has dropped its right to produce the remaining witnesses in witness box, except one namely - Ms. Amber B. Carr, FBI Expert. Case has been stuck at the stage of prosecution witness, as prosecution is not able to secure presence of Ms. Amber B. Carr, who is the last witness to be examined. 4. During the investigation/proceedings, certain bone samples were sent to FBI for DNA report, pursuant to which a report came to be filed in the year 2012. In the year 2017, the signatory of such report- Ms. Amber B. Carr, was sought to be summoned by the CBI as prosecution witness. The CBI, though dropped their right to lead evidence of other witnesses (100 in number), however, insisted upon the evidence of the said witness- Ms. Amber B. Carr, which was permitted by the Trial Court on 03.03.2017. 5. An application was moved by CBI to record her evidence via Video Tele Conferencing. Prosecution's such request was, however, turned down by the trial Court and the same was affirmed by this Court, vide order dated 22.05.2019, inter alia, holding that in absence of statutory provision in this regard, evidence via Video Tele Conferencing was not permissible. 6. Cbi has preferred a Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the order of this Court dated 22.05.2019, which is said to be pending consideration. 7. 6. Cbi has preferred a Special Leave Petition before Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the order of this Court dated 22.05.2019, which is said to be pending consideration. 7. It is to be noticed that on 25.05.2017, for the first time the Trial Court issued summons for Ms. Amber B. Carr, followed by issuance of summons on various dates till 01.06.2019. 8. On 22.07.2019, the Trial Court directed the CBI to contact Senior Officer of Foreign Ministry to persuade the FBI to ensure deposition of said witness. In furtherance of such direction, Mr. Vinay Kumar SP, CBI was deputed to ensure deposition by Ms. Amber B. Carr before the Trial Court. Said Vinay Kumar, SP, CBI filed a compliance report and informed that a letter was sent to Legal attache, US Embassy, New Delhi on 30.07.2019, in response whereof the Director, FBI, Laboratory sent a reply that testimony of the witness concerned be electronically recorded and Ms. Amber B. Carr who is employed in FBI Laboratory is precluded from personally going and deposing in other countries. It was also informed to the Trial Court that similar response has been received from the concerned witness, she however stated that her deposition be completed via Video Tele Conferencing. 9. The accused made a joint request that the evidence of the said witness be ordered to be closed and matter be posted for statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. The Trial Court rejected the application of the accused vide impugned order and posted the matter for evidence of the said witness on 13.09.2019. While rejecting the application, the Trial Court in its order dated 13.09.2019 observed that despite earlier direction of the Court given on 10.07.2019 and 22.07.2019, the prosecution (CBI) has not made sincere efforts to pursue the matter through Ministry of Foreign Affairs and FBI. The Trial Court directed the CBI to place on record the correspondence between CBI, higher officer of FBI and US Department of Justice and efforts of Department of Justice to invoke international Bilateral Legal Agreements through Ministry of Foreign Affairs and directed the Nodal Officer to remain present on the next date of hearing so that deposition of said US witness be ensured. The Trial Court went on to direct that in the letter to be written by the concerned Ministry, this fact be highlighted that the request of recording statement through Video Tele Conferencing has been rejected by the Court. 11. It is noteworthy that the prosecution - CBI had no objection to the request so made by the accused, except with a caveat that the fate of their SLP should ultimately govern the case. 12. Mr. J.S. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused are behind bar for more that 8 years. Despite various directions issued by this Court as well as by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to conclude the trial expeditiously, the Trial Court has not moved an inch for two years. 13. Learned Senior Counsel invited Court's attention towards the direction given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Union of India through CBI Vs Reshamaram Bishnoi [Special Leave to Appeal (Cri.) No(s) 9303/2013], relevant portion whereof is being reproduced hereinfra:- "In view of that, we think it would be appropriate for us only to request the concerned trial court to conclude the trial within a period of one year from today. No further order is necessary at this stage since the respondent is enjoying the bail for almost three years." He clarified that above order was passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in an SLP filed by CBI against grant of bail to Reshamaram Bishnoi - the only accused who is on bail. 14. He argued that the trial Court has given least regard to the directions so given, and under the anxiety of summoning the said witness, has brought the proceedings to a stand still. He was at pains to submit that the Court has given countless adjournments (as many as 44), against the mandate of Hon'ble the Supreme Court's judgment and law. Submitting that by keeping the proceedings in abeyance, the trial Court has hampered the rights of the accused to speedy trial, he prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the trial Court to proceed further in the matter and close the evidence of Ms. Amber B. Carr. 15. Mr. Ejaz Khan, learned Senior Public Prosecutor, appearing for CBI in-principle, did not oppose the request made by Mr. Amber B. Carr. 15. Mr. Ejaz Khan, learned Senior Public Prosecutor, appearing for CBI in-principle, did not oppose the request made by Mr. Choudhary and submitted that the stand of CBI before the learned Trial Court was that it may proceed with the recording of statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, with a condition that in case, Hon'ble the Supreme Court passes an order for recording of evidence of Ms. Amber B. Carr, via Video Tele Conferencing, the same shall be recorded and given effect to. 16. Heard. 17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner are facing trial for more that 8 years now and except Reshamram, all the petitioner are in custody. The Trial Court's efforts for summoning the aforesaid witnesses has gone in vain. Having had the DNA report, the prosecution have given the name of said witness in the list of prosecution witness as late as in the year 2017. The proceedings of the case have come to an impasse or dead end, with practically no way to return. 18. This Court is of the firm view that the Trial Court was not justified in arresting the proceedings, awaiting recording of evidence of said Ms. Amber B. Carr. Having regard to the fact that report from expert of Laboratory of India is already before the Trial Court, this Court feels that the facts of case do not warrant keeping the proceedings in abeyance awaiting her evidence. 19. In considered opinion of the Court the Trial Court has traversed way beyond its scope and issuing directions to CBI, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Justice in a bid to secure evidence/deposition of Amber B. Carr. Asking the CBI to place on record the correspondence and directing to write letters in a particular manner was neither warranted nor was the same justified. 20. The Court below was required to consider the right of accused to a speedy trial, which has been held to be a part of Right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this respect it would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in which, while dealing with the right of the accused to a speedy trial, [ Raj Deo Sharma Vs State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507 ], the Supreme Court issued following directions:- "16. In this respect it would be worthwhile to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in which, while dealing with the right of the accused to a speedy trial, [ Raj Deo Sharma Vs State of Bihar, (1998) 7 SCC 507 ], the Supreme Court issued following directions:- "16. The Cr.PC is comprehensive enough to enable the -Magistrate to close the prosecution if the prosecution is unable to produce its witnesses inspite of repeated opportunities. Section 309(1) Cr.P.C. supports the above view as it enjoins expeditious holding of the proceedings and continuous examination of witnesses from day today. The section also provides for recording reasons for adjourning the case beyond the following day. 17. After deep consideration of the matter, we proceed to supplement the propositions laid down by the Constitution Bench in Antulay's case (supra) with the following directions:- (i) in cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case. (ii) In such cases as mentioned above, if the accused has been in jail for a period of not less than one half of the maximum period of punishment prescribed for the offence, the trial court shall release the accused on bail forthwith on such conditions as it deems fit. (iii) If the offence under trial is punishable with imprisonment for a period exceeding 7 years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close the prosecution evidence on completion of three years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charge framed, whether the prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial of the case, unless for very exceptional reasons to be recorded and in the interest of justice the court considers it necessary to grant further time to the prosecution to adduce evidence beyond the aforesaid time limit. (iv) But if the inability for completing the prosecution within the aforesaid period is attributable to the conduct of the accused in protracting the trial, no court is obliged to close the prosecution evidence within the aforesaid period in any of the cases covered by clauses (i) to (iii). (v) Where the trial has been stayed by orders of court or by operation of law such time during which the stay was in force shall be excluded from the aforesaid period for closing prosecution evidence. The above directions will be in addition to and without prejudice to the directions issued by this Court in Common Cause v. Union of India, (1996) CriLJ 2380 as modified by the same bench through the order reported in Common Cause a registered Society v. Union of India, (1996) AIR SC 3538 ." 21. Further in Raj Deo Sharma (II) Vs State of Bihar, (1999) 7 SCC 604 ], Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:- "12. Section 309(1) of the Code enjoins on every trial court to continue examination of witnesses from day-today until the witnesses in attendance have been completed. The sub-section reads thus: "In every inquiry or trial, the proceedings shall be held as Expeditiously as possible, and in particular, when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded." 13. We cannot permit the trial court to flout the said mandate of the Parliament unless the court has very cogent and strong reasons. No court has permission to adjourn examination of witnesses who are in attendance beyond the next working day." 22. In view of the above referred position of law, this court is of the firm view that since the prosecution, though not due to its fault, has failed in its attempt to get the evidence of the said witness recorded, the trial Court ought to have closed the prosecution evidence and proceed further with the trial of the suit, instead of repeatedly adjourning the proceedings. 23. The Trial Court's insistence to secure presence of Ms. Amber B. Carr in a way amounts to collection of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, which may give an impression of stepmotherly treatment to the accused. 23. The Trial Court's insistence to secure presence of Ms. Amber B. Carr in a way amounts to collection of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, which may give an impression of stepmotherly treatment to the accused. 24. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the FBI has responded that the witness can not be sent to the Court and because as per CBI itself, said witness Ms. Amber B. Carr has refused to come to the Trial Court and considering other surrounding circumstances, particularly because there are orders from this Court so also of Hon'ble the Supreme Court to proceed with the matter on day-to-day basis, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 13.08.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be set aside to the extent of refusing to eschew the evidence of Ms. Amber B. Carr. 25. Which I hereby do. Present Misc. Petition is allowed, right of prosecution to lead evidence of Ms. Amber B. Carr is closed. It shall, of course, be subject to order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court regarding recording of her evidence by Video Tele Conferencing in the SLP filed by CBI. Such order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court will obviously be given effect to during Trial or otherwise. 26. As said witness was the last one to come on prosecution's side, the Trial Court shall proceed further in the matter and record the statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, forthwith. 27. Needless to remind the Trial Court that there are already order from this Court so also of Hon'ble the Supreme Court to proceed with the matter on day-to-day basis.