CHAINA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HERE is an example when change of advocate required cross examination of some witnesses. Petitioners Chaina Ram Lakha Ram are facing trial for offence under Section 302 IPC before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sojat. During trial Hema Ram PW -1, Rajaram PW -4 and Ghewar Ram PW -5 were examined. They were cross examined at length by the learned Counsel on behalf of accused persons. But somehow or the other the accused persons changed advocate. He was dissatisfied by the cross examination of above witnesses made by his predecessor adve cate. He moved an application under Sections 311 and 231(2) Cr.P.C. and prayed that the accused persons may be granted opportunity to further cross -examine these witnesses. Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed it. Hence this revision.

(2.) I have heard Shri Garg and Shri S.S. Sharma, Public Prosecutor.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submitted that PW -1 Hema Ram could not be confronted with his previous statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and the FIR which was lodged by him. He further submitted that there was contradiction in statement given in court by PW -5 Ghewar Ram and his statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before police officer. He could not be confronted with previous statement by the earlier counsel. He also submitted that Rajaram is a witness of recovery who has proved Ex. P/9 and Ex. P/13 but the memos do not mention his name. This aspect could not be cross examined. According to him, these are material questions and the witnesses should be ordered to be recalled and re -examined before the trial court.