RANJAY PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar.

(2.) The petitioner, an accused in Paharpur P. S. Case No. 62 of 2007 dated 14.06.2007, giving rise to Sessions Trial No. 356 of 2009, registered under Sessions 304B, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has approached this Court by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with a prayer for quashing the order dated 22.11. 2011 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in aforesaid Sessions Trial No. 356 of 2009 by which the prayer of the petitioner for recall of RW. 6 Shri Pankaj Kumar Shrivastava, Sub-Inspector of Police, for further cross-examination, has been rejected.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. vide Annexure-1 as an accused and on close of investigation charge sheet has been submitted against him,, but he is not alleged to have participated in commission of actual crime. It is also contended that the petitioner is a co-villager of co-accused Niwas Pandey, the husband of the deceased. It has further been submitted that after framing of charge, the evidence of P.W.1 was recorded on 06.05.2010. After examination of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5, who all are family members of the deceased, on different, dates, the recording of evidence of RW 6 Pankaj Kumar Shrivastava, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who is said to have taken over the charge of investigation on 01.08.2007 from the first Investigating Officer, namely, Shri Suresh Sharma (P.W.7) and submitted charge-sheet, commenced and concluded arbitrarily on 7th March 2011. Aforesaid P.W. 6 was examined- in-chief and was cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons before the lunch recess on 7th March 2011 and was required to be further cross-examined after the recess was over. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner became otherwise busy in a function organized by the Bar Association, therefore, he could not appear for further cross-examination of RW. 6 after the lunch recess and as such petition for deferment of cross-examination of P.W.6 for another date was rejected and P.W. 6 was discharged on 07.03.2011 itself. In the aforesaid background, a petition dated 04.11.2011 was filed on behalf of the petitioner for recall of the aforesaid RW. 6 for further cross-examination but, that has been rejected by the impugned order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned trial court. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hazari Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1994 CrLJ 3758 .