HIRA ANKUSH MANGAVDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Present Revision has been filed by the petitioneroriginal accused against order dated 13.1.2014, passed below Exh. 83 on 25.10.2013, by Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.12/2013, rejecting the request of the accused persons to call Dy.S.P. Anil Ghuge as witness under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short).

(3.) The petitioners claim that, they are facing the trial for offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein the complainant alleged that on 22.5.2010 he had arranged marriage of his daughter, and in the midnight, the petitioners instigated the daughter to elope with coaccused Deepak Baraskar and Ramchandra Baraskar. After statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., present petitioner No.4 (original accused No.6) had examined herself as defence witness and the evidence for accused was closed and matter was posted for final arguments on 25.10.2013. On that day, the petitioners filed the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. requesting to call Dy.S.P. Ghuge as defence witness. It is claimed that, prosecution witness P.I. A.V. Raikar, the investigating officer and one Head Constable B.V. Jagtap had conspired and misused their powers to bring about malicious and vexatious criminal proceedings against the petitioners. Petitioner No.4 as defence witness deposed that she had given complaints against P.W.10 A.V. Raikar to the higher authorities, vide letters dated 3.8.2010, 11.10.2010 and 23.10.2010. On directions of the Home Minister, Dy. S.P. had conducted the enquiry in the matter, wherein statements of P.W.10 A.V. Raikar and the Head Constable Jagtap were recorded as well as the statements of petitioners. Dy.S.P. Ghuge had submitted the final report on 8.6.2011. P.W. 10 A.V. Raikar in cross examination denied having knowledge about the complaints against him and Head Constable B.V. Jagtap. Thus, the application was made, but the same came to be rejected. The petitioners want to prove the fact of enquiry by Dy.S.P. Ghuge as according to the petitioners, because of the complaints made, they have been falsely implicated.