MANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this matter, the trial of Sessions Case no.34/2002 under Section 302 IPC pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana titled as State of Raj. v. Surpat Surana & ors. had been stayed vide order dated 16.9.2009 of this Court, some four years back. It is also agreed position that after grant of stay by this Court, the file of this Court was not traceable and ultimately, the file of this Court was reconstituted. It is also agreed position that in the trial court, some of the accused-persons are in jail but it is certain that accused- petitioner Manjeet Singh is on bail in the trial court. It is apparent that in a murder case, a person who is on bail, often tries to delay the trial by his best efforts. In this matter some of the accused-persons are suffering in jail since long.

(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.4.2009 of the trial court whereby his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial court. He has argued that the order of the trial court is perverse and arbitrary and deserves dismissal. But the opposite party has argued that order dated 9.4.2009 passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Sessions Case No.34/2002 under Section 302 IPC is perfectly justified.

(3.) THE trial court had dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-petitioner Manjeet Singh because the incident had not alledgedly occurred at the hotel and so the hotel owner was not a relevant witness. He appears to have been called only to delay the case of murder charge. Similarly, out of three doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examination, one of the doctors was examined in relation to post-mortem report and the remaining two doctors were deleted by the prosecution in the trial court and now defence counsel had sought permission to call those two doctors also as defence witnesses and it is pertinent to note here that during the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that he wants to ask nothing about the post-mortem report from those two doctors but he wants to cross-examine those doctors in relation to other things because they were the doctors who had declared the victim dead.