DEEPAK VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 10.4.2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Umariya in S.T. No. 18/2013 whereby three applications filed by the applicant have been rejected.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the applicant is facing trial for an offence punishable under Sections 376, 328 of the IPC before Sessions Court, Umariya. It is also not in dispute that at present the case has reached to the stage of defence. The applicant has filed three applications on 25.3.2013. First application was filed inter-alia pleading that it has been brought in the statement of defence witness Pooran Singh (DW-1) that some constables went to search and arrest the applicant on 31.1.2013, however, the applicant has been shown to be arrested on 2.2.2013, therefore, the evidence of the persons who arrested the applicant from his home be called for explanation that the applicant was illegally detained between 31.1.2013 to 2.2.2013. The second application was also based on the discrepancies brought in cross-examination of Anusua Uike (PW-18) with respect to quantity of residue of bottle of beer and further in respect of examination of Sr. Scientist/ Assistant Chemical Examiner in defence or in alternative, he may be called as Court witness. Third application was filed for recalling of S.I. Shringesh Rajput (PW-15) and Yogendra Singh Rajput (PW-17) to explain the ambiguity in their statements in regard to videography.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that it is necessary for fair trial to recall the aforesaid witnesses in defence. Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Rattiram and others Vs. State of M.P. Through Insp. Of Police - 2012 (II) MPJR (SC) 248.