MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the order dated 06.12.2010 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karnal, vide which, Roopwanti, mother of deceased Mukesh has been ordered to be examined as a Court witness. While challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the FIR, there is no mention of the presence of Roopwanti mother of deceased. Statement of witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded. No one has mentioned the presence of Roopwanti.

(2.) The police as cited as many as 20 prosecution witnesses. Roopwanti was not named in the said list of witnesses. Thus, she was stranger to the proceedings and is not connected with the present case. It is further stated that even brother of the deceased Subhash who was a witness to the recovery and identified the accused persons has not stated the presence of Roopwanti. Thus, the trial court had wrongly summoned the mother of deceased as a Court witness without there being any necessity. It was also stated that the same has caused unfair advantage and the witness has been called only to fill the lacuna.

(3.) Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered in the cases of Harnam Singh v. M/s Bhushan Metallics Ltd., 2007 1 RCR(Cri) 992, Ramamoorthy v. The State, 1999 CrLJ 4444, Hari Singh v State of Haryana, 2002 2 RCR(Cri) 316, Tripurari Mohan Prasad v. Union of India and others, 2006 CrLJ 774 and Kewal Gupta v State of H.P., 1991 CrLJ 400. Learned counsel was heard at length.