PHOOL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner under Sec. 500 Penal Code as recorded by the trial court in its judgment dated 18.7 87, the learned Special Judge, B C. Act, Jodhpur in a judgment dated 29th May, 1989, ordered that he be released on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 and a surety in the like amount and was also ordered to deposit Rs. 500.00 in the Court as costs. The amount of Rs. 500.00 if deposited was ordered to be paid to Smt. Radha Devi.

(2.) In assailing the order of the learned Special Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a two fold contention. The first contention is that the accused petitioner had filed an application under Sec. 315 Crimial P.C., that he wanted to examine himself in self defence but his application was not disposed of. The second contention is that a statement of the accused petitioner given in some other suit was not proved by calling the Magistrate who recorded the statement.

(3.) I find no substance in either of the contentions. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, I am of the opinion that under Sec. 316, Crimial P.C. though an accused is competent witness and may give evidence on oath to disprove the charges made against him or any other than the accused at the same trial, but he cannot appear as a witness except on his own request. under Sec. 315, Crimial P.C. no permission of the Court to an accused to appear as an evidence witness and to give evidence on oath is necessary but when an application on behalf of the accused-petitioner was filed that he wants to appear as a defence witness and he had requested is writing, he could have appear as defence witness. But after having made an application nothing more was done on behalf of the accused-petitioner. Accused petitioner never offered himself as a defence witness. The Magistrate would have been felt difference because after having made an application would have made to appear as defence witness and the Court would not have allowed him. So in my opinion, no permission is necessary to an accused to disprove the charges against him.