STATE Vs. ROMESH SINGH & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by learned Sessions Judge, Kathua, recommending quashment of an order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hiranagar, dated 07.02.2004, whereunder the learned Magistrate closed prosecution evidence in the criminal case captioned as above being tried under sections 147,323,325,201 of the RFC.

(2.) It appears that on 27.02.2001, police concerned instituted a case against the accused, five in numbers with allegations that on 26.12.1999, they attacked and injured complainant and his wife. On receipt of report the concerned police, conducted investigations and finding the accused guilty of having committed offences under sections 147, 323, 325 RPC, instituted the case before the Trial Magistrate. Materials submitted along with police report include the F.I.R. the site map of the alleged scene of occurrence, the medical report regarding nature of injuries including X-Ray reports, and the statements purporting to have been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. Nine persons including the concerned doctor, Investigating Officer and the concerned S.H.O. were listed as prosecution witnesses. Charge against the accused under aforesaid sections read with section 201 R.P.C., was framed on 01.03.2001, were after till the date of impugned order i.e. 07.02.2004 prosecution had produced and examined six witnesses, remaining ones being the doctor and police officers. On that date the learned Magistrate closed prosecution evidence after having giving last and final opportunities vide interim orders dated 19.04.2003 21.10.2003 and 24.01.2004. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner-State assailed the order before learned Sessions Judge, Kathua through a revision petition, who has made this reference, which is opposed by respondent's counsel on the contention that the case being quite old the trial Magistrate was right in closing the prosecution evidence because delay in trial of the case was injurious to the rights of the accused etc.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel, gone through the records and considered the matter. By and large, in all criminal trials, the trial Magistrates/Courts are invariably required to balance the right of prosecution to bring all incriminating materials against the accused on record and examine all the witnesses to prove the alleged guilt, with the right of the accused to speedy trial; which has got to be done, in given circumstances of a particular case, keeping in mind the nature of allegations, conduct of the parties, and of course the age of the case etc. Incidentally however, despite all the directory observations and express guidelines given on judicial side from time to time, no hard and fast rule can be laid down with the requisite amount of certainty covering the question of continuation of opportunity to the prosecution for bringing more and more evidence on record and closure of the evidence at a particular stage, as every case has always its own peculiarities. What is important is that the balance between the two must be present to the mind of the trial judge and record of proceedings should show that it was so.