MAANU Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing of the petition has been taken up through video conferencing on account of outbreak of COVID-19 Pandemic.

(2.) Instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by two of the accused, namely, Maanu and Sumit challenging the order dated 14.01.2020, whereby learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani has partly allowed the application filed by Smt. Pushpa @ Usha and permitted her examination by the prosecution.

(3.) Facts, in brief, are that FIR No.195 dated 13.09.2016 was registered under Sections 302 and 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on a complaint dated 13.09.2016 given by Madan, wherein he stated that his brother-in-law Kuldeep son of Satish had gone on a trip with his friends, Manoj, Maanu and Sumit. In the night intervening 12th-13th September, 2016, he sustained several injuries on his neck and face with a sharp edged weapon. As per his allegation, on 12.09.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., after taking meals the deceased slept with the above named three accused in the fields of Karambir. The next morning, he was found in an injured condition and was taken to a hospital, where he expired. This fact had been told to him by his mother-in-law, Smt. Pushpa @ Usha and she came to know about it from Sikander. In his cross-examination before the Court, the complainant deposed that he told these facts to the police, but the same had not been recorded in his statement. It was in these circumstances, Smt. Pushpa @ Usha, mother of the deceased, filed application dated 18.12.2019 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (Annexure P-1). for her examination as a prosecution witness. In her application, she stated that on 04.09.2016, the three accused, Manoj, Maanu and Sumit whom she knew personally came to her house and took the deceased Kuldeep with them. She stated that all of them had left her house together for going on a tour and she had seen them going together and thereafter her son never returned home alive. She further stated that during the night of 12th/13th September, 2016, the deceased talked to her on mobile phone and told her that they were staying in the room of Dhrama's Machhlitalab (fish pond) at village Dariyapur and that they will return home the next day. The next morning, one Sikander called her and told her that her son Kuldeep had been injured and was being taken to Jindal Hospital, Hissar. The applicant informed her son-in-law, Madan, who is the complainant, of these facts. She averred in the application that the police never contacted her during the investigation nor recorded her statement regarding the deceased having left the home in the company of the accused. She, therefore, submitted that it was essential that she be examined as a witness to arrive at the truth for the just decision of the case. Upon notice of the application, it was contested by all the three accused by filing separate replies. Public prosecutor supported the application. After hearing arguments, the learned Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, vide order impugned herein partly allowed the application.