BIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.9.2017 passed by 3rd Additional Judge to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No.293 of 2013 rejecting the application preferred by the Applicant/accused under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth 'CrPC').

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that a criminal trial under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth 'IPC') is pending before the Trial Court against the present Applicant/accused. During trial, the Applicant preferred an application under Section 311 CrPC and thereby sought for examination/re-examination of Dr. G.S. Gourhari Kamila, Assistant Director, Hyderabad (Ballistic Expert) and other 3 witnesses, namely, Dr. S.K. Bagh, Nasir Bathi and Ashok Sharma. The said application was rejected on the ground that Nasir Bathi, Dr. S.K. Bagh and Ashok Sharma have already been crossexamined in detail by the Applicant and thus the Applicant has been afforded a sufficient opportunity to make cross-examination of the aforesaid 3 witnesses. Regarding the ballistic expert, the application was rejected on the ground that while being supplied a copy of the report of the ballistic expert on 30.8.2017 to the Counsel for the Applicant, the Applicant was also present there and the Counsel for the Applicant had submitted that he did not want to call the ballistic expert for examination.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that on 30.8.2017 itself, when the matter was listed for final hearing, a copy of the report of the ballistic expert was supplied to the Counsel for the Applicant in the Trial Court and, therefore, the Counsel for the Applicant could not have sufficient time or occasion to assess as to whether examination of ballistic expert was necessary or not. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that despite there being clear and firm statement of the Counsel for the Applicant that he had not consulted with the Applicant regarding requirement of examination of the ballistic expert, passing of the impugned order by the Trial Court is arbitrary and contrary to the mandate of Section 311 CrPC.