RAM KISHORE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionists accused against the order dated 2-12-1998 passed by VIIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah, in S. T. No. 60/90. State v. Ram Kishore and Ors. under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 and 201 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by which order, the learned Trial Judge has permitted the re-examination of the opposite party No. 2.

(2.) IT is argued that this re-examination has been allowed a second time by the impugned order and it was done at the stage of 313 Cr. P. C. The said order was highly belated and if the applicants had failed to prove the letters, he could not be permitted to do the same at this stage to fill up the lacunae. The learned Trial Court by the impugned order has held that although the said documents were on the record of the case, as the said documents, which are letters have been filed on 5-1-1989 before the lower Court and they were present on the record of the case of the Trial Court on 8-3-1990 when the case was committed. Examination of P. W. 1 was conducted on 22-6-1998. On 25-5-1998 on an application of the accused, P. W. 1 was summoned as a Court witness and he was again cross-examined by the accused persons. The said letters, which the opposite party No. 2 wanted to prove, were purportedly written by the accused Ram Kishore and his daughter the deceased Smt. Pushpa Rathore and inadvertently he had omitted to prove the said letters. IT was further observed that under Section 138 of the Evidence Act, a witness can be given ample opportunity to prove any new matter or some matter emerges as a result of cross-examination and a witness may be permitted to explain those facts. For the essential and just decision of the case, the Court was empowered to summon any witness and that it would serve the interest of justice when both the parties were given full opportunity to establish their case. He, however, imposed costs against the opposite party No. 2 for the delayed application. I find no illegality in the said order.