TULSI RAM LODHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dtd. 6/3/2024 passed by Additional Judge to Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen by which the right of the applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix has been closed.

(2.) It appears that on 9/2/2024 the prosecutrix appeared for examination and her examination-in-chief was recorded. Although in the ordersheet of the said date, the trial court has mentioned that examination-in-chief and cross-examination of prosecutrix were completed and she was released. But from the deposition sheet, which has been filed as Annexure A/3, it is clear that after the examination-in- chief of prosecutrix was recorded, the counsel for accused/applicant prayed for deferment of the cross-examination on the ground that he has not properly prepared the case and some more information is required from the accused. Accordingly, the cross-examination was deferred. The case was adjourned for 23/2/2024. The petitioner has not filed the copy of ordersheet dtd. 23/2/2024 to show as to what transpired on the said date. However, by impugned order dtd. 6/3/2024 the right of the applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix was closed. It is clear from the said order that the prosecutrix was present and on that date Shri R.K.Gupta, Advocate appeared and filed his Memorandum and prayed for time to cross-examine the prosecutrix. When the Court insisted that the accused must pay the cost to the witness, then the counsel for applicant also refused to pay any cost. Under these circumstances, the trial court closed the right of the applicant to cross-examine the prosecutrix.

(3.) It is submitted by counsel for applicant that conduct of the applicant in not cross-examining the prosecutrix was not correct but he may be granted one more opportunity.