BHAGABAT SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate for the opposite parties. Keeping in view the limited nature of the question involved, the matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) THE petitioners assail the order dated 25.06.2008 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Bhadrak in 1 C.C. No. 66 of 2006 rejecting the petition dated 29.2.2008 of the petitioners for confronting the statement of P.Ws.1,4,5,6 and 7 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 1699 of 2005, as contradiction.

(3.) THE learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, after due enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C, took cognizance of offence under Sections 341/323/294/ 506/34 IPC and issued process against the accused persons. On 10.3.2006, G.R. Case No. 1699 of 2005 was tagged to the present complain case filed by the complainant. Thereafter, six witnesses were examined by the complainant, On 22.9.2007 the accused persons were allowed to further cross -examine the P. W. 1. On 29.10.2007 the accused persons were allowed to further cross -examine P.Ws.4, 5 and 6 with a direction to submit the appropriate costs. During the further cross -examination of P.W.4, the learned Counsel for the accused persons suggested to P.W.4 that he had not stated the fact to the I.O. in G.R. Case No. 1699 of 2005 which he had stated before the court. In other words, the defence attempted to contradict the witness regarding some material omission in her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred as 'the Code', for brevity. The learned Counsel for the copmplainant raised objection and submitted that arbitrarily the police being influenced by the accused persons, submitted final report for which the complain case has been filed and those witnesses have already been examined under Section 202 Cr.P.C. by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak. Learned Counsel for the complainant raised objection that the statement recorded under Section 1.6.1 Cr.P.C. by the I.O. cannot be allowed to be used by the defence counsel for contradicting any witnesses. The learned Magistrate accepted the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant and did not allow the defence to put any question or suggestion to the prosecution witnesses with reference to their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Such order has been assailed in this revision application.