JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The revisionists, who are facing trial for the offence under Section 306, IPC in S.T. No.68 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Farrukhabad have challenged the order passed by the court dated 11.9.2013. By the impugned order the application of the accused-revisionists to cancel the statement of PW-3 Ravindra Nath Mishra has been rejected and the accused persons have been directed to cross examine the witness on the next date fixed.
(2.)Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA and perused the record of the case.
It has been argued that the witness Ravindra Nath Mishra, who has been granted permission to be examined as witness on 13.4.2013 and his examination in chief was recorded as a witness is not named in the FIR nor has he been nominated as witness in the charge sheet. Thus, the order of the Court for examination of the witness was bad in law and the statement of PW-3 Ravindra Nath Mishra should not have been read in evidence. Reliance was placed on the case law of Vijay Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and another,2012 1 JIC 630.
(3.)The contention which appears on behalf of the accused-revisionists is that any person not nominated as witness in the charge sheet cannot be examined nor can be permitted to be examined as prosecution witness. It is proper to quote the provisions of Section 231, Cr.P.C. where in a Sessions trial the prosecution produces the evidence relied upon by it. The Section reads as follows:-
"(1) On the date so fixed, the Judge shall proceed to take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution.
(2) The Judge may, in his discretion, permit the cross-examination of any witness to be deferred until any other witness or witnesses have been examined or recall any witness for further cross-examination."
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.