KARTIK PARIMANIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed under section 407 of Cr.P.C. to transfer S.T. Case No.8 of 2011 from the court of Ad -hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC -I), Phulbani to any other court with equal jurisdiction.

(2.) AS per the petition, the petitioner is facing trial for the offence under sections 147/148/427/436/302 read with section 149 of I.P.C. in the aforesaid case. It is alleged that during cross -examination of the I.O. (P.W.7), the learned Ad -hoc Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC -I), Phulbani (hereinafter referred as 'trial court') did not record some answers given by him and declared that since on the self -same evidence an order of conviction had already been recorded against one co -accused in the split up case, it would not help the present accused even if the answer given by the I.O. to the question put by the defence counsel was recorded.

(3.) IT is further alleged in the petition that in his examination -in -chief the I.O. stated that due to blockage of road, he could not proceed to the spot of occurrence immediately after the F.I.R. was lodged. In cross -examination it was elicited from him that at that time there was no blockage of road and the vehicles were plying on the road freely without obstruction. At that time the trial court intervened and reminded the I.O. that he had already stated in his examination -in -chief that there was road block. When the defence counsel confronted some part of the evidence of P.W.1 to the I.O. to impeach the credibility of the latter, the trial court did not record the answer given by the I.O. Time and again the trial court expressed its view in the open court that no elaborate cross -examination was required because in the split up case one of the accused persons had already been convicted and the petitioner would meet the same fate.