LAWS(CHH)-2016-12-101

RADHEYSHYAM KESHARWANI @ LALLU Vs. PREMLAL KESHARWANI

Decided On December 20, 2016
Radheyshyam Kesharwani @ Lallu Appellant
V/S
Premlal Kesharwani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision is to the order dtd. 6/8/2016 (in the memo of revision wrongly mentioned as 5/8/2016) passed by 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Case No.29/08 whereby the Court below has partly allowed the application (Annexure P/6) as filed by the petitioner and fixed the case for cross-examination of the witnesses.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 27/11/2001 a complaint case was filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class praying that as respondent No.1 has committed offence under Ss. 307, 341, 294 and 506B of IPC, he be tried in accordance with law. Statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C., however, as the offence was triable by Sessions Court, the matter was committed to the Court of Session. Unfortunately, the Sessions Judge directed for recording statements of the witnesses before charge and number of witnesses were examined and cross-examined. When this mistake came to the knowledge of the incumbent Presiding Officer, she immediately stopped further proceedings related to examination of witnesses before charge and fixed the matter for arguments before charge vide order dtd. 30/6/2010. Subsequently, on 9/7/2010 charges were framed by the Sessions Court against respondent No.1 under Ss. 341, 294, 506 Part-II and 307 of IPC. The Sessions Court has further directed the Government Advocate to submit trial programme and accordingly directions were made to issue summons to the witnesses as per trial programme.

(3.) Before the trial could proceed, the petitioner/complainant filed an application dtd. 12/7/2010 requesting the Sessions Court that once before framing of charge all the witnesses have already been examined and cross-examined, no further examination of these witnesses is necessary and their evidence be read as it is in the trial. According to the petitioner, it is only the remaining witnesses who have to be examined and cross-examined during trial.