LAWS(RAJ)-2025-11-46

POORANMAL YADAV Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On November 07, 2025
Pooranmal Yadav Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of filing the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned orders dtd. 3/4/2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur in Sessions Case No.2/2024 by which the opportunity of cross-examination of the petitioner with the Prosecution Witnesses PW-1 Deepa and PW-2 Sunita has been closed and the order dtd. 10/5/2024 whereby the application submitted by the petitioner under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the above two witnesses has been rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is under trial for the offences under Ss. 376(2)(n), 506 & 392 of IPC before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, wherein charges were framed against him for the above stated offences vide order dtd. 20/2/2024 and the prosecution witnesses were summoned on the next date, i.e., 3/4/2024. Counsel submits that on the fateful day, that was the first day for recording of the statements of the above stated witnesses, counsel for the petitioner was not keeping well as he was suffering from an ailment. Hence, an application was submitted in writing for granting opportunity to cross-examine the Prosecution Witnesses on some other day, but the prayer made by the counsel was not accepted and the application was rejected and on the very same day, the petitioner's opportunity of cross-examination was closed by the trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 3/4/2024. Counsel submits that on the next day, an application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the petitioner for re-summoning the above two witnesses for the purpose of cross-examination, however, the said application was rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 10/5/2024. Counsel submits that cross-examination is a statutory right of the accused and in order to conduct a just and fair trial, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the aforesaid opportunity, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.