NANDLAL MAHLI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Cr. Revision has been directed against the order impugned dated 19.12.05 passed by Shri O.P. Pandey. 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumlain Sessions Trial No. 209/05 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No. 91/05 whereby and whereunder the prayer of the petitioner -accused to recall all the three prosecution witnesses for their cross -examination was rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner is the sole accused who is facing trial for the charge under Section 302, IPC for allegedly committing murder of the brother of the informant.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the impugned order it would be evident that on 28.11.2005 and 29.11.2005 total three witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the prosecution but in spite of repeated call Md. Taha, learned Counsel for the accused petitioner whose vakcdatnama was available on the record did not appear to cross -examine the witnesses and hence the witnesses were discharged. The Court had asked the accused as to whether he would prefer State defence (Counsel) for the cross -examination to which the petitioner denied and therefore, the Court below had reason to believe that the learned Counsel for the petitioner intentionally, deliberately and knowingly abstained from the Court to cross -examine the prosecution witness and hence the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner -accused to recall the witnesses for their cross -examination was rejected.