MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that the victim, who is deaf and dumb, has lodged a report alleging that one Mangilal has committed rape on her. The crime was registered and after due investigation charge sheet has been filed. During prosecution evidence the victim has been cross -examined as PW -1. An application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been moved by the petitioner stating that as per the evidence of the victim, she has narrated the incident to her husband that at 6.00 AM at the same time she also stated the presence of the petitioner in the field. The cross -examination could not be done on this point. It is further submitted that the incident has been committed in the house, but in the cross -examination no question has been asked whether neighbours have heard her cries or the incident was narrated to them. Hence it is prayed that the victim be called for re -cross -examination. The prayer was opposed by the prosecution. The learned trial Court has rejected the prayer holding that the defence has given proper opportunity for cross -examination, therefore, there is no need to recall the witness in the cross -examination. Being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed.

(3.) THE prayer is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor.