BABULAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 10.12.2018 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST) in Special Sessions Trial No.07/2013, wherein the application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C by the petitioners for recalling the prosecution witnesses have been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that petitioners are facing trial under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 294, 323 & 506 of the IPC and under section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this case, prosecution examined 22 witnesses in all and closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, accused statements were recorded and nine defence witnesses also adduced their evidence and when the case was fixed for final arguments on 10.12.2018, the Presiding Officer was informed that Advocate Shri A.S.Rathore from Indore would submit his final arguments. Shri A.S.Rathore thereafter appeared and filed an application under section 311 of the Cr.P.C seeking to recall five witnesses already examined on the ground that these witnesses could not be confronted with some material questions. Learned trial Court on that day itself i.e. on 10.12.2018 heard both the parties on the application and rejected the same.

(3.) Aggrieved, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed. In the petition, the petitioners have outlined the questions which needed to be confronted with and instead of five such witnesses mentioned in the application before the trial Court, nine witnesses have been mentioned which have been requested to be recalled. It has been submitted that learned trial Court rejected the petitioners' application purely on the point of delay. However, for the ends of justice, this should not have been a factor that the application was filed belatedly. The entire case of petitioners depends on the theory of self defence but unfortunately in the cross examination this aspect was not considered and questions were not framed accordingly. Also on the point of distance of the residents of the complainant party from the spot and some other relevant questions were not asked instead counsel asked such questions which are usually never put across by the defence in any trial. Hence, in the interest of justice, this petition has been requested to be allowed and the order of the trial Court has been requested to be quashed and further direction has been sought to direct the trial Court to recall prosecution witnesses viz. Jitendra (PW/4), Sanjay (PW/5), Ramchandra (PW/6), Basant (PW/7), Akash (PW/8), Arjun (PW/9), Rahul (PW/10), Vijay Pal (PW/11) and Sandeep (PW/12).