LAWS(DLH)-2016-10-131

JASDEEP KAUR CHADHA Vs. STATE AND ORS.

Decided On October 18, 2016
Jasdeep Kaur Chadha Appellant
V/S
State And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Sec. 482 and 483 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (South) Saket, Delhi in SC No. 44/2016.

(2.) In brief, a case registered under Sec. 147/148/302/307/325/365/368/395/397449/450/452/342/201/412/120-B/34 of Penal Code and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act was registered vide FIR No. 497/2012 Police Station Mehrauli, Delhi, at the instance of the complainant - Nand Lal, who was the driver of the deceased Hardeep Singh Chadha. Petitioner is the wife of the deceased. She has preferred the present petition aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge vide which the prayer of the prosecution to confront PW-23 Nand Lal with the portions of the statements of PW-23 dated 19.04.2014, 13.05.2014 and 26.05.2014 given before Juvenile Justice Board was declined.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the charge sheet in the case has been filed and the charges have been framed against the accused persons; trial is at the stage of prosecution evidence; 22 witnesses have been examined. However, PW-23 resiled from his statement made under Sec. 161 of Crimial P.C. and turned hostile. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that PW-23 - Nand Lal is also a witness for the prosecution before the learned Juvenile Justice Board I, wherein the inquiry of one of the accused/ juvenile in conflict with law is being conducted in the same FIR and he turned hostile on 27.11.2015. Thereafter the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission of the learned Sessions Judge to confront the statement made by PW-23 on 19.04.2014, 13.05.2014 and 26.05.2014 before the learned Juvenile Justice Board I, wherein the witness has supported the case of the prosecution before the Juvenile Justice Board, which was objected to by the accused and after hearing the arguments on behalf of both the sides, the impugned order was passed.