JAGDISH BARELA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is admitted for final hearing.

(2.) WITH the consent of the parties the same is heard finally.

(3.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 31-10-2001 passed by Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Khargone in S. T, No. 200/2001, State of M. P. v. Jagdish and four others rejecting the application filed by the Counsel for the applicant/accused persons for allowing him to contradict the witnesses Mangalia (P. W. 6) and Rola (P. W. 7) with their previous statements dated 13-8-99 recorded in S. T. No. 119/98 and 377/98. In that Sessions Trials for the same incident these two witnesses were examined by the prosecution and they had given different story about the incident than the story narrated before the Court against the present applicant in S. T. No. 200/2001. Therefore Counsel for the applicant submitted his prayer before the Trial Court for allowing him to contradict the witnesses from their statements and the same is permissible under Section 145 of Evidence Act. Trial Court after elaborate discussion in such a short point dismissed the application holding mainly that witnesses can be allowed to be contradicted only with their case diary statements, recorded during the course of investigation.