MANOJ SAXENA & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convicts Manoj Saxena and Mukul Saxena have filed this revision petition to assail order dated 12.09.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala thereby dismissing application for additional evidence moved by the convicts in their pending appeal. Petitioners stand convicted and sentenced by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 406 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Petitioners have filed appeal challenging their aforesaid conviction and sentence. During pendency of the appeal, petitioners moved application for additional evidence. It was alleged that Gajinder Singh DW- 1 has stated that SI Panna Lal along with other police officials visited the house of the complainant and recorded her statement and submitted the enquiry report before Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, but at the stage of defence evidence in trial court, petitioners were not aware of whereabouts of SI Panna Lal and SI Vajinder Singh as to where they were posted. Now the petitioners have come to know the whereabouts of SI Vajinder singh and therefore want to examine him as defence witness. Similarly Gurnam Singh Mehra, Superintendent of Police (D) had also conducted enquiry in the matter and he is also to be examined as witness. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners reiterated that the aforesaid witnesses SI Vajinder Singh and Gurnam Singh Mehra are essential for decision of the case for proving their enquiry reports.

(3.) The aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. No ground was stated as to why Gurnam Singh Mehra was not examined at the proper stage. There is also no averment as to what was the role of SI Vajinder Singh. On the other hand, enquiry report was prepared by SI Panna Lal and not by SI Vajinder Singh. It is not explained why SI Vajinder Singh is sought to be examined. In addition to the aforesaid, enquiry reports prepared by the police officials cannot be said to be relevant, unless the persons on the basis of whose statements the said reports were prepared, are examined as witnesses and opportunity is granted to the opposite side for their cross examination. Mere proof of the enquiry reports would not serve any purpose.