MAKKHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar in Appeal No. 45/2011, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant in evidence and for being permitted to confront him with the original compromise has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the complainant, which was conducted on behalf of the petitioner at the trial. He contends that at the time of the cross-examination, only the photostat copy of the compromise was available with the petitioner. He confronted the complainant with the photocopy on which, the complainant replied that he could give a proper reply to the questions in relation to compromise in the event of the original being shown to him. Learned counsel submits that the complainant did not deny about the execution of such compromise but rather feigned ignorance of the same. Learned counsel thus submits that the compromise is a valuable defence document which was traced out by the accused subsequent to the decision of trial. If the same is not taken on record, then the defence of the accused will be seriously prejudiced. Learned counsel thus submits that the appellate Court be directed to permit the petitioner to confront the complainant with the original agreement.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the complainant respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.