SANT SHRI ASHARAMJI BAPU S/O THEVARDASS @ THERUMAL, BY CASTE SINDHI, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SANT SHRI ASHARAMJI ASHRAM, MOTERA ROAD, SABARMATI, POLICE STATION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioner, Sant Shri Ashasram Bapu - a self proclaimed Godman, has laid this misc. petition under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. to assail impugned order dated 17th of Oct. 2015, passed by District & Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), declining his prayer to recall eight prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination and consequently rejected the application under Sec. 311 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioner in his application, inter-alia, averred that subsequent to launching of the criminal prosecution against him, one FIR was lodged at Police Station Nowabad, Jammu bearing No.168 of 2013, which is having direct nexus with the events of the present case. It is also averred in the application that police in the aforesaid FIR during investigation collected mobile call recording, call details, records so also oral evidence and finally filed charge-sheet against the accused persons. Application further unfolds a fact that in connection with the aforesaid FIR certain original documents are collected concerning age of the prosecutrix with which she could not be earlier confronted when she was subjected to cross-examination. While asserting that when the statements of PW5 Prosecutrix, PW 19 Rahul Sachan, PW21 Karamveer Singh and PW 23 Mahendra Chawla were recorded earlier, requisite material particularly mobile phone recording, call details and oral evidence was not available with the accused-petitioner and therefore these witnesses could not be effectively cross-examined by the defence counsel to confront them and to impeach their testimony. It is in that background, it is prayed in the application that subsequent availability of the aforesaid material has necessitated recalling of these prosecution witnesses to enable defence to cross-examine them in the light of that material for the just decision of the case. A plea is also sought to be raised at the behest of petitioner that application under Sec. 311 Crimial P.C. cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay.

(3.) The petitioner has also made endeavour in his application to castigate the prosecution for concealing relevant and material facts for craving leave to recall these witnesses in order to facilitate unearthing truth in the matter. Castigating the Investigating Officer, petitioner has also pleaded in the application that for soliciting necessary information about him, investigating officer has also thoroughly surfed the website of Ashram and continued its tirade in this behalf till submission of charge-sheet in the matter. A fact is also averred in the application that investigating officer has incorporated certain informations in the charge-sheet which were collected from the website. For pleading all these facts essentially, the petitioner has made an attempt to highlight partiality in the investigation. That apart, some other facts are also pleaded in the application for recalling all these witnesses for cross-examination.