ASHARAM @ ASHUMAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.3.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur (for short the Trial Court hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 152/2013, whereby the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for summoning the statements of witnesses namely Smt. Geeta, Ms. Manju, Varsha Rastogi, Shilpa and Reena recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police, has been dismissed.

(2.) The accused-petitioner is facing trial for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 354-A, 370(4), 376(2)(f), 376(d), 506, 509, 120 I.P.C. and Sections 5(f)/6, 5(g)/6 and Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the POCSO Act) and Section 23 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. He has moved an application before the Trial Court and demanded that the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses namely Smt. Geeta, Ms. Manju, Varsha Rastogi, Shilpa and Reena be summoned. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order, therefore, the petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition while claiming the following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for serious offences and, therefore, the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Geeta, Ms. Manju, Varsha Rastogi, Shilpa and Reena are required to be summoned by the Court so that the accused-petitioner may have a proper opportunity to prepare his defence. It is contended that the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the statements of above named witnesses has wrongly been rejected by the Trial Court without giving any cogent reasons. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the accused person has right to defend his life and personal liberty and in order to defend, it is imperative that all the evidence, which are required to defend, should be examined by the Court. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Smt. Geeta, Ms. Manju, Varsha Rastogi, Shilpa and Reena are necessary and desirable for the purpose of trial, however, the Trial Court has rejected the said application without considering the necessity and desirability of the said statements.