NIMISH SUNIL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 18/4/2023 whereby time limit was fixed by the learned trial Court to cross-examine the victim, whereas vide order dtd. 29/4/2023 his right to cross-examine the victim has been closed. Learned counsel for the petitioner would confine this petition against the order dtd. 29/4/2023 whereby the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the victim has been closed.

(2.) The facts of the present case, are that, on a complaint of the victim dtd. 7/5/2016, the F.I.R. was registered on 7/5/2016 against the petitioner and his relatives for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 377, 323 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The matter was investigated by the police and the charge sheet was filed wherein one more Sec. i.e. 376 of IPC was added against the petitioner. The Sessions Trial No. 108/2017 is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, District Durg (C.G.) wherein the learned Trial Court has framed charges against the accused. In the sessions trial, two witnesses were examined whereas the examination and cross-examination of the victim (PW-1) was continued and during her cross-examination, the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 29/4/2023 closed the right of the petitioner to further cross-examine the victim on the ground that sufficient time has been afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the victim. It is observed by the learned trial Court that a total of 12 hours and 57 minutes have been granted to the accused to cross-examine the victim and again on 29/4/2023, 01 hour and 10 minutes were given and the cross-examination cannot be permitted to continue for an indefinite period.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that vide order dtd. 31/3/2023 two days were granted to the petitioner for cross-examination of the victim i.e. on 17th-18/4/2023. He would further submit that on 17/4/2023 the petitioner cross-examined the victim and thereafter on 18/4/2023 again the victim was cross-examined by the petitioner for 50 minutes from 11:10 AM to 12:00 PM. Thereafter on account of the demise of an advocate, the court proceedings did not continue post-lunch. He would next contend that the learned trial Court granted two full days to cross-examine the witness vide order dtd. 31/3/2023 whereas on 29/4/2023 only 01 hour and 10 minutes were granted to cross-examine the victim and thereafter the learned trial Court closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the victim observing that sufficient time has already been afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine the victim. He would also submit that the petitioner may be granted 01 hour more time to cross-examine the victim and in that period, the petitioner will conclude the cross-examination. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Bombay High Court rendered in the matter of Baburao Patel v. Bal Thackeray and Another, reported in 1979 Mh.L.J. 11 and would submit that the court cannot restrict an accused imposing a time limit for cross-examination of a witness.