SHRIRAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482, Cr. P.C., to quash the order dated 29.8.2008 passed by Sri Shambhu Sharan Mishra, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Hardoi in Session Trial No. 118 of 2007 relating to Case Crime No. 469 of 2006, under Section 302, I.P.C., Police Station Behta Gokul, District Hardoi.

(2.) The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that the aforesaid Session Trial is pending against the applicant in the above Court and the statements of P.W. 1 Smt. Reshwa and P.W. 2 Smt. Neetu Devi have been recorded in the Court. They have been cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the accused-applicant. However, the accused moved an application on 28.8.2008 for recalling the above named P. Ws. for further cross-examination with this allegation that some important questions regarding manner and use of the weapons, the place of occurrence with boundary and disputing identity of place of occurrence, and the material contradiction in respect of weapons and the manner in which it was used could not be put to the witnesses at the time of cross-examination, and it was necessary in the interest of justice that these witnesses be recalled for further cross-examination. The above application was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi on the ground that both the above named P. Ws. had been sufficiently cross-examined, and there was no justification for recalling them for further cross-examination. Against the said order, the accused-applicant filed the present application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. before this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that it was alleged in the first information report that the accused-applicant had given axe blow to the deceased from its reverse blunt side but since the injuries found upon the dead body of the deceased were incised wounds, the prosecution changed its version at the stage of evidence before the Court and the above noted P. Ws. stated that blows of axe were given from its sharp edge side and this important change was done to meet the above discrepancy and so the opportunity should be given to the accused-applicant for further cross-examination of the witnesses on this point. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the accused-applicant that due to heavy rush of the work, he had forgotten to put this question to the witnesses.