RAMNARAYAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed assailing the order dtd. 1/3/2024 passed in ST No.108/2018 by 7th Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind (M.P.) by which the opportunity of petitioners/accused persons for cross- examination of witnesses namely, Kusuma and Karan Singh has been denied. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that impugned order is perverse, illegal and against the settled principles of law. He has further argued that learned trial court has wrongly mentioned in impugned order that prosecution witnesses namely, Kusuma and Karan Singh have appeared before the Court on four occasions. The order-sheets annexed with this petition at page-10 dtd. 4/4/2022 to 12/2/2024 clearly indicate that Kusuma was present on 4/4/2022 and Karan Singh was present on 23/4/2022, however, on 23/4/2022, the Court was vacant, therefore, Karan Singh was bound for the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the Court was vacant until 25/7/2022. On 25/7/2022, an application under Sec. 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed and the case was adjourned on multiple occasions for deciding that application and finally that application was decided on 18/5/2023. Thereafter, case was listed on 11/7/2023 for recording of evidence, however, no prosecution witness was present. Even on 13/9/2023 and 13/10/2023 witnesses were not present. On 2/11/2023 & 13/12/2023 Court was vacant. On 23/1/2024, witnesses Kusuma and Karan Singh were not present and other witnesses were cross-examined by counsel for the petitioners. Even on 12/2/2024, witnesses Kusuma and Karan Singh were not present and only appeared on 1/3/2024. On that day, counsel could not appear on account of death of his father-in-law. The entire order-sheets reveal that these prosecution witnesses only appeared for the second time, therefore, it cannot be said that they were present on four occasions as opined by learned trial Court.

(2.) It is further argued that an opportunity be granted as a matter of last indulgence to the petitioners/accused persons for cross-examination of witnesses Kusuma and Karan Singh in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the revision and argued that learned trial Court has rightly denied the opportunity for cross-examination and prayed for rejection of present petition. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the material available on record.

(3.) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that an opportunity as a matter of last indulgence should be granted to petitioners/accused persons for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses namely, Kusuma and Karan Singh on payment of Rs.1,000.00 (Rs. One Thousand Only) each to both of them. In view of above, impugned order dtd. 1/3/2024 is hereby set-aside in respect to denial of opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses namely, Kusuma and Karan Singh. The petitioners are directed to be ready for cross-examination of above-mentioned witnesses as and when they appeared before the trial Court. If petitioners fail to cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses, no further opportunity for cross-examination shall be granted to them.