HITEN PRASAN DALAL Vs. ABHAY DHARMASI NAROTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOMEWHAT queer point is raised by the above named accused-applicants, which Court is required to consider, at such a stage of the trial of the above case, when prosecution has concluded its evidence, in examining as many as its 81 witnesses and has closed its case, recording of statements/explanations of all the 12 accused in this case, including the above applicants-accused under section 313 of the Cri. P. C. has also been completed. As would be pointed out later on, the point in question is no more res integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (Tribhuvannath v. The State of Maharashtra), reported in A. I. R. 1973 S. C. p. 450 directly on the issue. However since 6 out of 12 accused in this case, being applicants named in the title of this judgment have with some amount of seriousness and emphasis urged the said point, that this Court is thrashing out the same, on consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and facts and circumstances as obtained in the matter herein.

(2.) POINT at issue raised and canvassed arises, in the context of and in the light of provisions as contained in section 315 of Cri. P. C. (hereinafter referred to as Code) its scope, amplitude, meaning, implications and consequences and which section gives the right to the accused of examining himself on oath as a witness for his defence in disproof of the charges made against him or any person charged together with him at the same trial. Applicants-accused have questioned and challenged the said right of the accused No. 3 Abhay Dharmasi Narottam in this case who has by written application opted for exercising his right of examining himself as a witness for the defence in disproof of the charges made against him in this case, asserting that they apprehend that the evidence which accused No. 3 proposes to lead is not in disproof of the charges against him, but he is adducing evidence against the co-accused in this case. This is the principle challenge and bone of contention of the applicants-accused.

(3.) ALL these applications are being disposed off with a common order. The above named applicants-accused are the accused in Special Case No. 7 of 1993. The reliefs claimed by the said applicants-accused are common. In that, the above named applicants-accused in their respective applications prayed that accused No. 3 Abhay Dharmasi Narottam in this case be not granted permission to examine himself as a witness for his defence on oath which the said accused No. 3 has sought as provided under section 315 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By and large the grounds for such opposition as contained in all these applications and/or reasons or justifications assigned are similar. Submissions advanced by the Counsel/advocates of the above respective applicants-accused proceed more or less on identical lines. The provisions of law as also the principles applicable and attracted are also the same. Hence the common order.