SHANKER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. S. Tripathi, J. This revision has been directed against the order dated 9-8-2000 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Sessions Trial No, 520 of 1995, rejecting the application of the ap plicant for recall of Murlidhar Singh whose statement was recorded on 8-10-1997.

(2.) THE applicant facing trial in Ses sions Trial No. 520 of 1995 under Sections 302/307 IPC moved an application before the trial Court for recalling P. W. Murlidhar Singh on the ground that when the state ment of witness was recorded co-accused Munna Bajarangi was not arrested and his case was not committed to the Court of Sessions. THE case of Munna Bajarangi was committed to the Court of Sessions in July, 1999 for which Sessions Trial No. 157 of 1999 was allotted. THEreafter on 21-9-1999 evidence of Murlidhar Singh was recorded in the above ST No. 157 of 1999 in which he stated that he was knowing Abhishekh alias Guddu Yadav from before but not recognising the other ac cused and that he had also not seen injuries being caused on Sanjay Rai, therefore, the witness be confronted with his above state ment under Section 145 Crpc. THE learned Sessions Judge on hearing the learned Counsel for the parties held that Murlidhar Singh was examined and he was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the applicant at great length. After a lapse of two years his statement was recorded in another case and some contradiction was necessary to occur and therefore, there was no sufficient ground for recalling the wit ness for further cross-examination. With these findings he rejected the application.

(3.) THE applicant wanted to recall (PW-1) Murlidhar Singh for confronting him from his statement in another Ses sions Trial. A witness may be confronted from his previous statement under Section 145 Evidence Act which says that a witness may be cross- examined as to previous statement made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to mat ter in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved, but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.