RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is A4 among five accused, who were tried for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. THE occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 31.1.2004 and on the strength of the complaint given on the next day i. e. on 1.2.2004 the case has been taken up for investigation. In the first information report given, one Balakrishnan has been suspected as an assailant and subsequently during the course of investigation, the petitioner along with other accused, has been listed as accused. Presently, the trial is under progress. One of the listed witnesses is Govindaraman, who is the Village Administrative officer of the neighbouring place.

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A4 is alleged to have given extra judicial confession to this Village Administrative Officer and during the course of investigation, the investigating officer is alleged to have examined the Village Administrative Officer and recorded the statement. During the course of trial, the examination of the Village Administrative Officer as well as the statement made to him was objected to be received as evidence, which was negatived in the order impugned. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

(3.) THE Supreme Court has clearly observed in the case State v. Navjot Sandhu (supra) that during the course of trial, the objections can be received but the result could be given at the time of delivering judgment after receiving argument by both the parties. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to disturb the finding of the learned trial Judge. However, the petitioner is at liberty to raise all the points, including the points canvassed in this revision and the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the accused, at the time of delivering the judgment, may pass orders in accordance with law.