VIKAS SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY order impugned dated 25.11.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shapura (Jaipur), the application preferred by the revisionist under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as 'the Code') to summon the prosecutrix Santosh for cross examination, stood rejected.

(2.) THE contention of learned counsel for the revisionist, while assailing validity of the order aforesaid, is that although the prosecutrix had been cross-examined by the revisionist but there are certain questions with regard to the Site Plan and the Virginity of the prosecutrix, which could not be asked due to inadvertence. Further that the learned trial court did not appreciate the fact that it is a settled principle that no party in trial, can be foreclosed from correcting errors. Placing reliance on the judicial decision in the matter of Rajendra Prasad vs. Narcotic Cell, 1999 SCC (Cri) 1062, it was urged that court should be magnanimous in permitting inadvertent mistakes to be rectified because the function of the criminal court is administration of criminal justice and not to count errors committed by the parties or to find out and declare who among the parties performed better. Further that if truth is foreclosed from coming before the court, that is miscarriage of justice. THE court should not go into the technicalities but should try to find out what is the true story.

(3.) SO far as the questions with regard to virginity of the prosecutrix are concerned, the medico legal expert has been cross-examined on the issue. The lacunae left by the revisionist, despite opportunity, cannot be allowed to be filled by recalling the witness. The revisionist had been given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine, which was availed also by continuing the cross-examination for three dates running into 7 full scape pages.