STATE OF GOA Vs. MAHANAND NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule with the consent of the parties. Learned Counsel waives service for the respondent. Petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

(2.) This is a revision application tendered by the State seeking quashment of the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao on Exhibit 66 in Sessions Case No.33/2009 recorded on 23/09/2014.

(3.) The respondent/accused is being tried for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. It is the case of the prosecution that between 19/02/2008 and 24/02/2008, the accused committed murder of of Miss Nirmal Amolkar, resident of Chivan Waddo, Rivona, Quepem, Goa and robbed her gold ornaments such as gold chain, pair of gold earrings, etc. The crime came to be registered bearing no.57/2009 at Verna Police Station. After investigation of the crime, charge sheet came to be presented against the accused alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 392 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao on 24/09/2009. The offence being triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was remitted to the Sessions Court, Margao. After examination of witnesses by the prosecution in the trial and on consideration of the defence put forth by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge at Margao by judgment and order dated 30/03/2010 was pleased to acquit the accused for offence charged against him. This Court took the suo motu cognizance of the acquittal of the respondent/accused and thereupon the State Government preferred an appeal to the High Court challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. This Court by an order dated 29/10/2013 allowed the appeal presented by the State and remitted back matter to the trial Court with a direction to record further evidence of the witnesses, except such or those witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded. During the course of trial on remand the prosecution led evidence of 5 witnesses and since additional witnesses were examined the prosecution tendered application seeking leave of the Court to reexamine the Investigating Officer. The trial Court by order dated 23/09/2014 was pleased to reject the application tendered by the prosecution holding that the application does not deserve to be considered in view of the specific directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court while remitting the matter back to the trial Court, thereby refusing permission to examine Investigating Officer, is subjected to challenge in this criminal revision application.