VIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. being aggrieved of the order dtd. 6/1/2021 in Sessions Case No.45/2002, State Vs. Smt. Vijay Yadav, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Women Atrocities Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur whereby the application for reading the statements of witness Phool Singh recorded during trial of co-accused Jogendra Singh, against present accused respondent who absconded during previous trial, has been dismissed and order dtd. 6/4/2021 dismissing the application for recalling the said order dtd. 6/1/2021.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case cognizance under Ss. 498A and 304B IPC was taken on 18/9/2001 against accused respondent Vijay Yadav, her son Yogesh, and her husband Jogendra Singh. During trial the present accused respondent Vijay Yadav absconded. She was declared absconder on 28/2/2002 and standing arrest warrant was issued against her. Proceedings under Ss. 82 and 83 CrPC were also initiated. The statements of witness Phool Singh, the father of deceased were recorded during the trial of co-accused Jogendra Singh and after trial by judgment dtd. 2/3/2005 he was convicted for offences under Ss. 498A and 304B IPC. The present accused respondent Vijay Yadav surrendered before the trial court on 5/6/2018. During trial against the present accused respondent Vijay Yadav above said witness Phool Singh was produced before the trial court and on his examination by the court and learned Public Prosecutor it was found that he is not capable of hearing and speaking. Medical reports were also produced before the trial court. In such a situation an application was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the mother of the deceased Renuka to read the statements of Phool Singh recorded during the trial of co-accused Jogendra Singh. The statements of Phool Singh so recorded in earlier proceedings should be read in evidence under Sec. 299 CrPC and Sec. 33 of the Evidence Act, but the application of the prosecution and the petitioner have been wrongly dismissed by the trial court. The petition deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on Mohammed Shafik @ Sheikh Salim Vs. State of Rajasthan [2012(4) WLC (Raj.) 9]. The petition should be allowed.