PRANAB KISHORE MUDULI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 30-10-2003 passed by the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge-cum-C.J.M., Nayagarh in S. T. Case No. 64/218 of 2002 rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners for recalling the P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination.

(2.) The petitioners are facing trial for commission of offences under Sections 366/376 of the Indian Penal Code. Case of the prosecution is that the victim-informant is a friend of petitioner No. 2. On 28-1-2000 she was called by the petitioner No. 2 to visit her elder sister's house. It is alleged that the victim along with petitioner No. 2 went to Bolgarh in a motor cycle driven by petitioner No. 1. At Bolgarh they remained in the house of a lawyer where from the petitioner No. 2 returned to Daspalla. When the victim-informant wanted to return to Daspalla along with petitioner No. 2, petitioner No. 1 did not allow her to go and in that night committed rape on her. The victim further alleged that she had to remain with the petitioner No. 1 for about three months and subsequently on 14-4-2000 on seeing her elder brother she escaped from that place. It further appears that after charges were framed, trial commenced and five witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. At that stage a petition was filed by the petitioners to recall the P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination on some material particulars. Said petition having been rejected in the impugned order, this revision has been filed. From the order of the learned Asstt. Sessions Judge it appears that the petition was rejected on the ground that the witnesses have already been exhaustively cross-examined and there was no need for further cross-examination.

(3.) A copy of the petition to recall the aforesaid witnesses filed before the trial Court has been annexed as Annexure 2. It is stated in the petition that P.W. 1 was not cross-examined on material points like location, spot, manner of leaving, details of marriage held and the fact of victim leaving with her brother. Similarly, P.W. 2 was also sought to be recalled for cross-examination in respect of materials, such as spot, manner of leaving, co-habitation, marriage at temple, movement from Bolgarh to different places, ornaments and sarees used by her, injury sustained by her as well as contradictions. Deposition of these two witnesses have been filed before the Court for perusal. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, it appears that he is the owner of the house where petitioner No. 1 and the victim stayed. In cross-examination-in-chief he has stated that one day in the year 2000 accused Pranab came to his house with his two friends and the informant Samita told him that she is the wife of accused Pranab and wanted a house on rent. Thereafter he let his house to them where both lived as spouses. Later on he came to know that they had been to Puri to get their marriage registered. This witness has further stated that both of them stayed for some days in his house on rent and later he heard Samita's brother traced them out and took them back. So far as this witness is concerned, it appears that he is the owner of the house where the petitioner No. 1 and the victim stayed together for sometime. This witness stays at Bolgarh and the offence of kidnapping took place at Daspalla. Therefore, this witness can never say as to how the victim and the petitioner No. 1 left the place or how marriage took place, etc. So far as the fact of rescuing the victim is concerned, this witness has already stated in his examina-tion-in-chief that he had heard that Samita's brother traced them out and took them back. I, therefore, do not find any reason for recalling the witness for further cross-examination.