NANDLAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANTS have filed this revision against the order dated 4-9-2006, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, in Sessions Trial No. 237/96, rejecting their request for examining three witnesses in defence out of the total nine witnesses sought to be examined by them. The witnesses in respect to whom request was rejected are viz. (1) Dr. Anil Agrawal, Prof. Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi (2) Dr. R.K. Wright, 1000 Duck's, Nest Road, Turtletown, TN 37391, (USA) and (3) Mr. P.K. Satyanathan, District Government Pleader, District Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the applicants are facing trial for the offences under Sections 302, 376(2)(g), 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The crime was registered with Jaripatka Police Station, Nagpur (Maharashtra), but by the order of Apex Court, the trial of the case has been transferred to Sessions Judge, Chhindwara. The incident is dated 28-31994. It is said that a maid servant viz. Manorama Kamble, who was employed at the house of accused/applicant, was found dead in the house. A report was lodged by them that she died due to electric shock. On post-mortem examination, the cause of death was revealed to be the throttling and that she was subjected to rape before death. According to prosecution, the deceased had not died due to electric shock. However, an injury between the thumb and first finger of her hand was fabricated which was a post-mortem injury.

(3.) LEARNED Sessions Judge refused to summon Dr. Anil Agrawal and Dr. R.K. Wright in defence on the ground that the prosecution had already examined the expert witnesses in respect to cause of death of deceased and defence had already cross-examined them at length. Therefore, it was not necessary for defence to examine other expert witnesses for rebutting the evidence of those witnesses. Prayer for summoning the witness P.K. Satyanathan was refused on the ground that he was Government Pleader in District Court, Nagpur and he had appeared in the case for State in bail applications filed by accused persons. Aggrieved by the aforesaid refusal, applicants have preferred this revision.