ROHAN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No.417/2008 dated 27.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and 01.12.2015 whereby, learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's prayer to call defence witness and also denied time to file revision before this Court.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this revision are that present applicant is facing trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.417/2008. Statement of Investigating Officer, PW -20, was recorded on 03.03.2011. During his cross examination, it was stated by the witness that he could not answer the questions put to him without case diary, therefore, recording of his statement was deferred. The Investigating Officer appeared before the Court on 29.10.2015 again without case diary, however, on that day, his cross examination was proceeded with and finally it was completed on 02.11.2015. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. on 21.11.2015. In the accused's statement made under section 313 of Cr.P.C., present applicant stated that he wanted to examine only one defence witness, Vinay and he also undertook to produce the witness on his own without any help of summons issued by the Court. However, witness was not produced by him and another witness was produced in his place. Thereafter, present applicant filed two separate applications by which he sought to examine three private witnesses ­ Manohar, Hamid and Vinay and he also sought to call Head Moharrir of the Police Station ­ Bhanwarkua and Police Station ­ Juni Indore with criminal record of the deceased Dheeraj.

(3.) Learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to dismiss the application vide impugned order dated 01.12.2015 on the ground that present applicant only wanted to examine one witness Vinay as mentioned by him in his statement made under section 313 of Cr.P.C. and now, he has given list of two more witnesses, while none of the defence witnesses remained present on the fixed date. He further observed that the matter is pending for the last 7 years and according to his observations, present applicant wanted to linger the matter on some pretext.