HABIB UR REHMAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dtd. 7/10/2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram in Sessions case bearing No.109 of 2021 having arisen out of FIR No.356 dtd. 2/11/2020 registered under Ss. 304-B, 302, 406, 120-B and 34 of IPC at Police Station Kherki Daula, Gurugram whereby an application filed under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for recalling 16 witnesses for further cross-examination had been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this petition are that the petitioner is facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Sec. 304-B and 406 read with Sec. 34 of IPC on the basis of written complaint filed by the complainant Vinay Ratta alleging that his daughter Hitaksha Ratta had eloped with the petitioner and got married with him in the year 2018. They came into contact with her again after three months thereafter. His daughter along with the petitioner had come to his house and three months after her marriage with him, and at that time, he had given dowry as per his status and had spent good amount of money. A female child was born to his daughter on 15/5/2020. He alleged that thereafter, the petitioner had started demanding dowry from the daughter of the complainant. He used to misbehave with her by physically assaulting her and by quarreling with her on account of demand of dowry. His mother also joined him in the same. The complainant alleged that he had requested the mother of the petitioner to make the petitioner understand but she did not give any satisfactory reply. His daughter used to tell them that after the birth of her female child, the petitioner and his mother had started harassing her more on account of demand of dowry. The complainant was not even allowed to visit the matrimonial house of his daughter and the petitioner had even changed his old residence. He alleged that on the same night, he had received a call from the petitioner about the death of the victim and on reaching the hospital, he found the dead body of his daughter to be lying with a ligature marks on her neck. While alleging that the mother of the petitioner used to make demand of car, cash and gold and that his daughter had been killed on account of demand of dowry, he prayed for taking action against them. The petitioner is presently facing trial for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 304-B, 302, 406 and 120-B read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(3.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner on the grounds that during the pendency of the trial, he had filed an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. making prayer with the trial Court to recall 16 witnesses as examined by the prosecution for the purpose of conducting their cross-examination by submitting that both the petitioner and his mother were in jail since the date of incident. They did not have any access to the case file. After being released from jail, the mother of the petitioner had consulted with some experts and then they had come to know that some material witnesses had not been properly cross-examined by the lawyer who had been engaged by them. It was submitted that, thereafter, the petitioner had changed his counsel before the trial Court and had moved application for recalling some witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-3, PW-7 to PW-9, PW-12 to PW-16, PW-18 to PW-22 but the said application had been dismissed. It is submitted in the petition and it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses as non cross-examination would cause serious prejudice to him. It is, therefore, argued that the petition may be allowed and opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to further cross-examine these witnesses so that no prejudice is caused to him.