LAXMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.11.2014 passed by the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area Act), Jalaun, by means of which the application moved by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

(2.) SUBMISSION of counsel for the petitioner is that an application for recalling Arvind Kumar, P.W. -1 as well as for examining Doctor O.P. Sharma as well as Parasuram, Naib Tehsildar, who prepared the Panchayatnama of the unknown deceased person as the aforesaid witnesses are very much material for just and proper decision of the case and, therefore, they should be summoned, so that the defence may be in a position to know as to whether the statement given by Kishanji under Section 161 Cr.P.C. can be relied upon as dying declaration or not. He has further submitted that the aforesaid aspect of the matter came to light when the prosecution concluded its arguments and the defence started its arguments and while preparing the arguments, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that these witnesses are required to be summoned, but the trial court has illegally rejected the same ignoring the aforesaid material fact. It is submitted that the trial court instead of rejecting the application moved by the petitioner, it ought to have summoned the aforesaid witnesses to know the veracity of the statement of the deceased. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the apex Court rendered in the case of Natasha Singh vs. CBI (State), 2013 LawSuit(SC) 404 .

(3.) LEARNED AGA, on the other hand, has submitted that the application has been moved by the petitioner with a view to linger on the proceedings that too at a very belated stage. He has further submitted that earlier also the petitioner moved an application for summoning Parasuram, Naib Tehsildar, which was rejected by the trial court finding that there is no need to summon the said witness. When the petitioner failed to succeed in the earlier round, then he with a mala fide intention moved the second application with different cause just to delay the proceedings, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the same. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the application as the petitioner has not moved the application with bona fide intention.