MANGESH KISANRO DAHE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant. Admit. Ms Kalyani Deshpande, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service for respondent no.1-State. Notice to respondent no. 2 dispensed with. By consent of parties, taken up for final disposal forthwith.

(2.) By this application, applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside order dated 18.7.2011 passed by District Judge-2 and Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial No. 100 of 2010. By the impugned order the prosecution is allowed to re-examine P.W. 4 Nanda Narayanrao Nandane on limited question of ambiguity. P.W. 4 Nanda first stated that she saw the incident and later, she deposed that she came to the spot after the incident. Learned APP appearing in the trial, therefore, sought permission from the trial Court to re-examine P.W. 4 Nanda to clear the ambiguity.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there was no ambiguity in the deposition of P.W. 4 Nanda. He contended that re-examination cannot be allowed to fill up lacunae and to wash away the admissions. Reliance is placed on the ratio laid down in the case of Pannayar v. State of T N, 2009 9 SCC 152.