PRAVEEN DHAMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the instant petition is made to the order dtd. 21/9/2021, passed in Sessions Trial No.12 of 2018, State vs. Vineet and others, by the court of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "the case"). By the impugned judgment and order, an application filed under Sec. 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") by the petitioner has been rejected.

(2.) Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated are as hereunder. An FIR was lodged by the private respondents ("the informants") against the petitioner and two others, according to which, on 29/9/2017, the petitioner and co-accused killed Bittu Chaudhary. After investigation in this matter, charge-sheet was submitted against four persons excluding the petitioner. The trial proceeded. Initially two witnesses PW1 Rakesh Kumar and PW2 Sanjeev Pal Singh, both the informants were examined. An application under Sec. 319 of the Code was filed by the prosecution.

(3.) By an order dtd. 5/1/2019, the application under Sec. 319 of the Code was allowed and the petitioner was also summoned to face trial with the existing accused. This order dtd. 5/1/2019, passed in the case was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court and before the Hon-ble Supreme Court (in this Court, it was Criminal Revision No.137 of 2019 and challenge was made before the Hon-ble Supreme Court in SLP Criminal No.9947 of 2019). It appears that post summoning of the petitioner under Sec. 319 of the Code opportunity to crossexamine the PW1 Rakesh Kumar was closed by the court but, subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioner, PW1 Rakesh Kumar was cross-examined by the petitioner. PW2 Sanjeev Pal Singh was also crossexamined. It is, at that stage, an application under Sec. 311 of the Code was filed by the petitioner with the averments therein that PW2 Sanjeev Pal Singh could not be cross-examined with regard to his previous statements given during investigation. It is this application, which has been rejected by the impugned order.