PAPPU SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash and set aside the order dated 10.10.2014, passed by 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar, in Sessions Trial no. 183 of 2010, State vs Sonu and others, under Section 304B IPC, relating to police station, Khanpur, District Haridwar, whereby said Court allowed the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and recalled the prosecution witness (PW4) for further crossexamination.

(2.) IN the instant case, an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved on behalf of accused persons with a prayer to recall PW4 Chaman Lal, father of deceased, to cross -examine him on only two points (a) whether the victim was literate, semiliterate or illiterate and (b) regarding an agreement whereby the agricultural land was given by PW4 for the purpose of cultivation to respondent nos. 2 and 3, respectively, son -in -law and father of son -in - law of PW4 Chaman Lal. Such application was allowed by the trial court on payment of costs. PW4 was directed to be summoned for cross -examination on the aforesaid two points. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the complainant.

(3.) IN this case, as per the order impugned, PW4 stated in his examination -in -chief, that his daughter was semiliterate, in the sense, that although she did not know how to read and write, but could append her signatures. PW4 also stated before the trial court, in his examinationin -chief, that the suicide note was not written by his daughter, in as much as she attended school only upto Class II. Whereas PW5 also stated in the same vein, a document was filed on behalf of accused persons to show that the victim studied upto class VIII. Transfer certificate was filed on behalf the accused persons and, therefore, the accused persons wanted to cross -examine PW4 only on the point as to what was the educational qualification of the victim.