SRIRAM 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.) HOWEVER, so far as the prayer of learned counsel for the accused-applicant for putting the question regarding the manner of use of the axe is concerned, I am of the view that he may move a fresh application before the learned trial Judge specifying the question which he wants to put to the witnesses. If any such application is moved, the Presiding Officer of the Court, may if, after hearing the applicant's learned counsel and the prosecution, comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to put the question to the witnesses in the interest of justice and that it had not been put to the witnesses earlier, permit the applicant to put the said question to the witnesses and for that purpose, the witnesses, i.e., P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 may be recalled on payment of travelling expenses and diet money etc., to be paid by the accused-applicant.