SHAKUNTLA RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the rival contentions, it is apparent that respondents- accused are facing trial under Section 304-B/34 IPC. Petitioner Shakuntla Rani, mother of the deceased was examined on 24.3.1998. On this very day, Hazara Singh, uncle of the deceased was also examined as PW2, but their cross- examination was deferred as Sessions Judge was busy in recording evidence in some other case. When the case was again taken up on 20.4.1998, these two witnesses were not cross-examined. From the zimni orders, it is not clear that the witnesses were present or not. If they were not present, what orders were passed seeking their presence for the adjourned date is not clear. But on this date i.e. 20.4.1998 two more witnesses were examined. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5 submits that these witnesses were cross-examined on 20.4.1998. Shakuntla Rani and Hazara Singh PWs are not cross-examined as yet. Three more witnesses, relations of the deceased, are summoned for 21.5.1998. The petitioner's contention is that she has been threatened by respondents 2 to 5 not to depose true facts against them. Petitioner has been examined, but her cross-examination has been deferred. Her statement is not complete. Even statement of Hazara Singh is not complete. From the zimni orders, it is apparent that peculiar way of examining the witnesses is being adopted by the trial Court. When two witnesses were examined in this Sessions case, he ought to have recorded the statements of these witnesses completely. They should not have been discharged on that date. He should not have switched over to another sessions case. Thus recording only examination-in-chief of two witnesses in one case, then adjourning it for the sake of recording evidence in another sessions case is a novel way adopted by the trial Judge which cannot be approved on any count. It only reflects that Sessions Judge is trying to take up the cases pending before him in hot haste. He is directed not to repeat this practice in future.

(2.) PETITIONER 's counsel submits that now three more witnesses (relations of the deceased) are to be examined on 21.5.1998. The interest of the petitioner be protected and for this date respondents 2 to 5 be taken in custody. Then witnesses will be at liberty to depose freely without any apprehension.