(1.) After closure of the prosecution evidence, and, also after conclusion of the proceedings, drawn, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused had projected their aspiration to adduce defence evidence. The accused ensured, the, stepping into the witness box, on, 12.7.2019, of, one DW namely Anjana Devi. However, on the afore date she was only examined in chief, and, on the request of the learned PP concerned, the crossexamination of the afore witness was deferred. On the afore date, the learned trial Judge, listed the matter, for, 9.8.2019, rather for, the recording of the depositions of the remaining defence witnesses.
(2.) On 9.8.2019 the learned defence counsel, had given up, DW Raksha Devi. However DW Anjana, for, whose crossexamination, the matter was listed on 9.8.2019, rather remained un-cross-examined thereat, as, the learned defence counsel moved, an application seeking therethrough, permission for her becoming exempted, for, the requisite purpose, on the stated grounds, as, carried in the requisite application. Another DW one Sandesh, though, became served for 9.8.2019, yet was constrained to record her appearance, before the learned trial Judge, and, also the requisite exemption application, came to be allowed, and, thereafter the learned trial Judge, ordered for recording, of, the depositions of the afore DWs, on 13.9.2019.
(3.) However, through the impugned order, the learned trial Judge, though, becoming seized with an application, for seeking exemption from personal appearance, of, DW Anjana Devi, and, with averments becoming cast therein vis-a-vis ailments besetting her, and, also despite medical prescription slips becoming appended therewith, yet declined the espoused relief, qua the defence, merely, for the reasons, vis-a-vis, the afore witness not becoming demonstrated to be admitted, to, hospital, nor becoming demonstrated, to, become disabled to travel up to the Court, consequently, the defence evidence became closed. The afore order is challenged before this Court.