Court No. - 77
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46379 of 2019 Applicant :- Dharm Singh And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
The applicants namely, Dharm Singh, Sarvesh, Tantiram, Chaviram, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer to quash the orders dated 1.4.2019 & 4.11.2019, passed in Session Trial No. 84/2018 (Sanjay vs. Dharam Singh & others) under Section 436 I.P.C., Police Station- Nibohara, District- Agra, pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge, Court No. 7, Agra.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned counsel for the applicants argued that evidence of PW- 1, was got closed and the ground for closure was repeated adjournments being taken by accused persons. Whereas, the two adjournments were on the ground of inability of advocate, rest two were on the ground of transfer application, moved by complainant himself and it was not a deliberate adjournment. Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed, which was rejected by impugned order. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.
Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.
From the very perusal of order of trial Court, filed in a certified copy, it is apparent that PW-1, Sanjay Kumar, has been examined in Examination-in-Chief. Then after, repeated date for his cross-examination was fixed but learned counsel for defence, could not cross-examine him. Ultimately, by mentioning those reasons, evidence was got closed. Then after application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was moved, with above prayer and it was rejected by trial Court.
Repeatedly, this Court as well as Apex Court has propounded that witnesses in a criminal trial are to be examined, on the date of their appearance in the Court. They could not be compelled to appear repeatedly at the choices of other side. Rather, once trial begins and witness is in attendance, then as per Section 309 of Cr.P.C., the same is to be examined and date is to be fixed in continuation unless some special reasons to be recorded in order-sheet. Meaning thereby, repeated dates for appearance of witness and adjournment by accused persons will be harassment to witnesses.
In the present case, the situation is like that. But cross- examination of a witness is right for checking veracity of testimony of witnesses, hence, the ground given for adjournments was of either counsel or of moving of transfer application. Under above facts and circumstances, one opportunity for cross-examination may be given by trial Court, after recording of entire evidence, in that case and looking the coordination given by learned counsel for defence, in examination of other witnesses.
With above observation, this proceeding is being finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Kamarjahan