BABU RAM Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since last one year. Uptil now, only one doctor and few formal witnesses have been examined and the case is now adjourned to 11.5.1998. During investigation, evidence of extra-judicial confession and statements of two witnesses, who deposed that they' saw the petitioner drinking wine in the company of the deceased is collected. The case is based on circumstantial evidence.

(2.) The learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, admitted that in this case charge was framed on 4.8.1997. The first date for recording evidence was 22.10.1997. Uptil now, one Yusuf Ali, one doctor and seven formal police official witnesses have been examined. Yusuf Ali is the witness before whom extra-judicial confession was given by co-accused Ajit. Doctor conducted the autopsy and now the case stands adjourned to 11.5.1998. Even the learned Assistant Advocate General does not know as to one which dates these witnesses were examined and why the important witnesses of this case, namely, Parkash, Sahu and Pawan Singh were not produced/examined.

(3.) It is surprising that even in cases where charge is under Sec. 364/302/201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Sessions case initially die evidence of formal witnesses is recorded, this practice is strongly deprecated. In every Sessions case, on first two dates, all important witnesses of die case should be produced by die prosecution and should be examined by the court Even it is surprising that in this case accused is in custody and the case is adjourned to 11.5.1998.