GOPAL RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question of dispensing with personal attendance of the petitioners, in a criminal case, needs consideration in the present petition. This question has assumed importance these days, as trial in criminal cases takes long time and, even in petty matters, the accused are forced to attend the Court for years together. The matter, therefore, requires serious consideration to provide guidance to the Subordinate Courts.

(2.) The circumstances leading up to filing of the present petition under Sec. 482, Cr. P.C., may be narrated. For an incident, which took place on February 23, 1989 two cross reports were lodged at Police Station, Chomu. On the report made on behalf of the petitioners, Crime No. 59189 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 324, IPC and, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on June 20, 1989 against the members of the complainant-party. Crime No. 60/89 was registered under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 379, IPC on the report made by the complainant Ram Narayan, in which the police submitted a negative report, which is popularly known as Final Report The concerned Magistrate however did not agree with the conclusions of the investigation, hence further investigation was directed by him vide order dated September 7, 1989. After further investigation, the police again came to the same conclusion that the incident did not take place in the manner as was stated by the complainant. For the injuries, which were simple and superficial in nature, sustained by some members of the complainant-party, it was stated in the report that the same might be caused in the exercise of right of private defence of person of the members of the opposite-party.

(3.) The learned Magistrate, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant, did not accept the final report of the police and took cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 224, IPC. All these offences, though arc triable as a summons case, but the learned Magistrate, instead of issuing summons, in the first instance, issued bailable warrants to procure attendance of the petitioners. On July 31, 1992, an application u/Sec. 205 (1) Cr. P.C. was moved by the petitioners through their Counsel, in which a prayer was made to dispense with their personal attendance and permit them to appear by their Advocate. For the women-accused, it was stated in the application that they were Pardanashin and avoid to appear at public places and they,were falsely implicated to be maligned. For Smt. Sajan and Smt, Gunji, it was also stated that they were suffering from high blood pressure. For Om Prakash and Girdhari, it was stated that they were students and were attending classes. For the rest of the accused, it was stated that they were agriculturists and remain engaged in the agricultural operations from morning to evening. In the application, it was also stated that no dispute of identification of the accused was involved in the matter and the accused could be properly defended by their Counsel. The complainant did not file any reply to the above application and the facts narrated in the application by the petitioners, remained uncontroverted. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the prayer of the petitioners by the impugned order, observing that no proof was placed on the record about the fact that the ladies were Pardanshin or were suffering from any illness or that Om, Prakash and Girdhari were students.