Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 23750 of 2018 Applicant :- Ekta@Goldi Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Saroj Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Bipin Kumar,Mohammad Naushad Siddiqui
Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Sri M.N.Siddiqui and Sri Sri Bipin Kumar, Advocates have filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today, which is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri S.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri M.N.Siddiqui, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned AGA for the State.
3. The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Chandauli in Session Trial No. 144 of 2012 (State Vs. Ekta @ Goldi) under Section 302 IPC. Further direction has been sought to direct the learned court below to summon the prosecution witness for cross examination of the defence in Session Trial No. 145 of 2012 under Section 4/25 Arms Act, Police Station Chakia, District Chandauli.
4. By the impugned order, the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the applicant on the ground that two sessions trial arise from the same occurrence and that the prosecution witness have been examined in those cases and that the sessions trial in both cases have been merged and are being conducted together.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arising from the incident dated 27.04.2012, an FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered on 28.04.2012. On the next date, upon the alleged recovery of knife, another FIR was registered under Section 4/25 Arms Act. The two FIRs resulted in separate charge sheet and consequently, separate session trial no. 145 of 2012 arising from the offence under Section 4/25 Arms Act and sessions trial no. 144 of 2012 arising from the alleged offence under Section 302 IPC had arisen.
6. It is then admitted by that order dated 17.10.2013, the proceedings in two sessions trial were merged.
7. It is in such circumstance, the accused person had filed an application on 27.04.2018, which has been rejected by the impugned order.
8. Also, the stand taken by the applicant that the alleged recovery of knife has yet not been proved by investigating officer, has been disputed by Sri M.N.Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2. He submits that PW-7 - Sub-Inspector, who had made recovery of knife and PW-8, constable had proved the FIR. These witnesses are also claimed to have been cross examined by the accused.
9. In the aforesaid facts, it is difficult to imagine how the applicant can be aggrieved at present, inasmuch as if the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the recovery of the knife has yet not been proved is accepted, it would remain a matter to the advantage of the defence of the accused persons and it would never be an issue, that may prejudice his right.
10. In any case, admittedly the trial in two cases having arisen on a common incident and the same having been merged, it is difficult to accept the submission of leaned counsel for the applicant that the evidence should have been led separately.
11. Consequently, the present application lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.9.2018 Lbm/-