RAMOD BHADAURIYA Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

(2.) The instant revision is directed against order dated 4.8.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge / F.T.C. No.1, Jalaun at Orai in S.T. No.65 of 1999 State v. Bhagwan Das & others., whereby the application of the revisionists 213 Ka under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.W.6 - the investigating officer was rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that initially, in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., P.W.2 - Smt. Rani has stated that on the fateful day at about 8:00 p.m., only one accused Vakil took her son Mahesh with him on the pretext of showing video. Later on, it was revealed that Mahesh was seen going along with the four persons, whereas in her statement before the Court, P.W.2 improved her version and stated that the four accused took her son with them and she had disclosed this fact to the investigating officer. The application was moved for recalling P.W.6 - S.I. Jai Ram Verma, the investigating officer to prove the contradictions and omissions in the statement of P.W.2 - Smt. Rani. Learned counsel for the revisionists further submitted that there was material contradiction and omission on the part of P.W. - Smt. Rani regarding the persons, who took her son away from her house, and inadvertently this contradiction / omission could not be put to the investigating officer and the relevant portions of the case diary could not be proved and, therefore, P.W.6 should have been recalled to prove the contradiction and omission and learned trial court committed illegality in rejecting the application of the revisionists.