PINTU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicants are accused in S.T. No. 1302 of 1999, State v. Pintu and another, under Section 376 I.P.C. pending in the Court of XI Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr. In the case, the statements of the applicants were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. on 25-7-2001. One of the questions, which was question No. 10, put to the applicants was whether they want to adduce evidence in defence. The reply given to this question by the applicants was in negative.

(2.) THEREAFTER , the applicants moved an application that the statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. were recorded in the absence of their Counsel; that the reply to question No. 10 in negative has been recorded by mistake; that they want to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence in defence. The request has been rejected by the impugned order, dated 8-1-2002 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by it, this petition has been preferred.

(3.) THE argument that wrong reply to the question No. 10 was recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be accepted. However, for this reason the applicants cannot be debarred from producing oral or documentary evidence in defence.