Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Through E.mail
No. r12.1cr Gaz. 11.17.
From
The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh.
To
All the District & Sessions Judges in the State of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh.
Dated: Chandigarh; the < < o j - 1 3 Subject: Circulation-copy Of orders dated 06.11.2012 passed by Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh, in Crl. Appeal No. D-796-DB of 2008.
Sir/Madam,
I am directed to refer you on the subject cited above and to
forward herewith a copy of orders dated 06.11.2012 in Crl. Appeal No.
D-796-DB of 2008 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab with the
request to circulate the same amongst all the Judicial Officers or any quasi
judicial authority presided over by the Judicial Officers posted in your
respective Sessions Division to keep in mind the provision of Section 309
Cr.P.C., while postponing or adjourning the hearing of the criminal cases,
particularly, when a material witness in a criminal trial has been partly
examined.
Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this communication.
Yours faithfully,
Deputy Registrar (Gaz. II) Encl:-As above. For Registrar General Endst No. f ec-3 I c p i Gaz.II(17) Dated 2 c, A copy is forwarded to the following officers for information and necessary action, if any:- 1. L.R., Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. 2. Director (Admn.), Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh. 3. The Principal Secretary-cum-Registrar to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 4. PS/PA/Reader/Steno to all Ld. Registrars; 5. PS/PA/Steno to all Ld. OSDs; 6. Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Punjab, Haryana and
U.T., Chandigarh. 7. Supdt. (Rules) 8. Supdt. (Computer) 9. Supdt. (Confidential) c \"^a21 10.Supdt. (Criminal) Deputy Registrar (Gaz. II)
For Registrar General
14340 H.C.—Item 1-20,000—Govt. Press. U.T., Chd.
Respondent , ■•=1.*. 4-qr-our
Appeal from the order of --.4i4206 —J
Opening Sheet for Criminal Appeals (Section 419, Criminal Proced are)
In the High Court of the States of
Punjab and Haryana
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Criminal 1-Appeal No. 4----Q-6of GOO
Divisional Register No.
Whether filed by appellant District Date of filing Petition in person or by Counsel
or Agent -
Stamp on Petition of appeal
LAAAAAJov-z 71ciaJ
versus
dated the —
Charge under section SCDD-r-
ssnfevse
Ot-t.(4-1 4 l; /IA C6\".91
4./AA/■:_ Cv01A-"CAAVY
VEEN BHADU), ADVOCATE
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGAH
CRA No. r2-76.DB -- of 2008
MEMO OF PARTIES
Rakesh Kumar, son of Parkash Chand son of Buta Ram,
aged 20 years, Carpenter, caste Mahasha, resident of
village Bala Pindi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
(Now Confined in Central Jail, Gurdaspur)
Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab Respondent
CHANDIGARH
DATED: 07.11.2008 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008
Date of decision:6.11.2012
Rakesh Kumar ...Appellant
v.
State of Punjab
••••
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
...Respondent
Present: Mr. Praveen Bhadu, Advocate for the appellant.
Mrs. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
This appeal has been filed by appellant-Rakesh Kumar against
the judgment and order dated 2.9.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur
whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 25,000/- for
the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Pooja Devi. He has
also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the
murder of Jyoti. However, both the substantive sentences have been
ordered to run concurrently.
z
03
z
0.
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [2]
FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of
Des Raj, who mainly stated that his wife Krishna Rani had been admitted in
Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur about 7/8 days back for conducting stone
operation. He and his daughter Jyoti aged 16/17 years had come to Civil
Hospital at Gurdaspur to look after her. He had kept his daughter Jyoti in
the house of his brother-in-law Parkash Chand, resident of Village Bala
Pindi. He usually used to remain with his wife in the hospital to look after
her and in the night he used to go to the house of his brother-in-law Parkash
Chand for sleeping. He further stated that on 19.9.2006, after leaving his
sister Yash Rani with his wife, he came to the house of Parkash Chand. In
the night after taking meals, he and Parkash Chand slept in one room, his
daughter Jyoti, Parkash Chand's daughter Pooja Devi aged 18/19 years and
Rakesh Kumar aged 26/27 years son of Parkash Chand slept in another
room on separate beds. On the intervening night of 19/20.9.2006 at about
12.30 a.m., the complainant heard loud shrieks. He and Parkash Chand
came out of the room and saw that Rakesh Kumar son of Parkash Chand,
who was having small 'Datar' in his hand, was inflicting blows on his sister-
Pooja. Pooja Devi in order to save herself jumped across the wall of her
house and entered in the adjacent house of her neighbour. Rakesh Kumar
followed Pooja Devi with 'Data? after scaling over the wall and gave many
'Datar' blows on her within his and Parkash Chand's sight. She fell on the
ground. Complainant and his brother-in-law raised alarm, then Rakesh
Kumar ran away from the spot with 'Data?. On reaching there, they saw
that Pooja Devi had received many injuries on her body. After coming back
GH
CO
UR
T
PU
NJ
AB
& H
AR
YA
NA
H
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008
[3]
in the room, the complainant saw that the neck of his daughter Jyoti had
been amputated with 'Datar' while she was sleeping and she had died. After
arranging vehicle, he and his brother-in-law and Gulshan Kumar took Pooja
Devi to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, who died near the hospital. Motive
behind this occurrence was that Rakesh Kumar had suspicion on the
character of his sister Pooja and cousin Jyoti and they were out of his
control. Due to this reason, Rakesh Kumar had killed Pooja and Jyoti.
After recording the statement of the complainant by Inspector Tilak Raj,
SHO, Police Station Dinanagar at 4.10 a.m., 'Ruqa' was sent to the Police
Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.
Inspector Tilak Raj, SHO then went to the spot i.e. the house of
Parkash Chand. Dead body of Jyoti was found lying there on a cot. He
inspected the spot and prepared inquest report. He took into possession
blood stained earth after preparing sealed a parcel. He also took into Police
possession the blood stained folding bed etc. Then he went to Civil
Hospital where dead body of Pooja was lying. He prepared inquest report.
Dead bodies were sent for getting conducted post-mortem examination. On
that very day, he arrested accused Rakesh Kumar. On 23.9.2006, during the
course of interrogation, the accused made disclosure statement and then in
pursuance of his disclosure statement he got recovered blood stained
'Datar'. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and the
'Datar' was taken into Police possession after preparing a sealed parcel. On
24.9.2006, accused produced before him his blood stained clothes.
Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation,
the challan was presented.
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [4]
On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie
charge against accused-appellant Rakesh Kumar, framed charge for the
offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Pooja Devi and Jyoti. The
accused pleaded not guilty to above charge and claimed trial.
In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.
Manoj Gupta, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Jyoti on
20.9.2006 and found the following injuries:-
"1. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm on left part of face from
medial end of left eye brow downward to cheek. Clotted blood
present underlying bones of orbit surrounding nasal bones and
bones of face crushed and fractured at multiple sides.
Dissection revealed multiple injuries underlying muscles,
nerves and vessels.
2. Big incised wound 15 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm on right side of
neck obliquely placed extending from posterior hairline
towards mid line of body anteriorly. Clotted blood present.
Underlying muscles, nerves, vessels cut at multiple places.
Further exploration revealed fracture of cervical vertebra at
multiple places.
3. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm on extensive surface of
middle of right hand. Clotted blood present. Underlying
bones fractured and tendons, muscles and vessels cut.
4. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on extensor surface of
middle of left hand. Underlying bones cut and fractured.
Underlying tendons, muscles and vessels cut and crushed at
AN
A H
IGH
P
UN
JA
B &
HA
R
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008
[5]
multiple places.
5. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right inguinal
region obliquely placed. Underlying vessels, nerves and
muscles cut."
In his opinion the cause of death in this case was due to injuries to
vital organ, haemorrhage and shock caused due to injuries No.1 and 2. All
injuries were found ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp edged
weapon.
On the same day, he also conducted post-mortem examination
on the dead body of Pooja Devi and found the following injuries:-
"1. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm on right side of cheek
and nose. Clotted blood present. Underlying bones of face and
nose cut and fractured at multiple places. Dissection revealed
multiple cut injuries to underlying muscles, nerves and vessels.
2. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm on chin lower part underlying
bones cut and fractured at multiple places, muscles, vessels
cut.
3. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on head back in right
occipital regions obliquely placed. Underlying skull bone
cut and fractured at multiple places. Further dissection
revealed cut on right occipital lobe or brain.
4. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on left forearm middle
part. Underlying muscles, tendon, vessels cut.
5. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left wrist extensor
surface underlying muscles, tendon, vessels and bone cut.
GH
CO
UR
T
z
PUrJ
AB
&
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [6]
6. Another incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left hand
extensor surface 3 cm distal to injury No.5. Underlying
muscles tendons, vessels bone cut.
7. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right forearm
middle part extensor surface. Underlying muscles bones,
tendons and vessels cut.
8. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right hand extensor
surface. Underlying bones, vessels, verve's and tendons cut."
In his opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to injury to
vital organs, haemorrhage and shock due to injuries No.1 and 3. All injuries
were found ante-mortem in nature and caused with sharp edged weapon.
PW-2 Ashwani Kumar, Photographer mainly deposed regarding
the photographs Exs.P.1 to P.B. PW-3 PHC Vir Kumar is a formal witness,
who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PF. PW-4 Parkash Chand is the
eye witness and brother-in-law of complainant Des Raj. He has not
supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. He stated that
accused is his son. Des Raj PW-5 is his brother-in-law. Krishna Rani is
wife of Des Raj. She had kidney problem and was admitted in Civil
Hospital, Gurdaspur. Deceased Jyoti was daughter of Des Raj. Jyoti came
to his house on the intervening night of 19/20.9.2006. He was not present
in his house. On the intervening night, Jyoti and Pooja Devi were murdered
in his house but he did not know who murdered Jyoti and Pooja Devi.
When his cross-examination was conducted by the Public Prosecutor, he
denied that his statement was recorded by the Police. He was duly
confronted with the statement but he denied the contents of the statement.
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [7]
PW-5 Des Raj in his chief-examination deposed as per prosecution version.
His cross-examination was deferred and when he was cross-examined on
2.1.2008, he resiled from his statement and stated that on the intervening
night of 19/20.9.2006 he was present in his house at Dasuya. He also stated
in cross-examination that the Police accompanied by Parkash Chand PW-4
came to his house in the morning of 20.9.2006 and had brought him and his
son Ashwani Kumar, as also Parkash Chand to Dinanagar. It was for the
first time that at Police Station, Dinanagar the Police disclosed to him that
Jyoti and Pooja had been murdered. They went to Village Bala Pindi for the
first time on 20.9.2006 to cremate dead bodies of Pooja and Jyoti. He
further stated that Pooja and Jyoti were not murdered in his presence and he
was not present in Village Bala Pindi during the said intervening night. The
Police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and did not record any
proceedings in his presence. PW-6 Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman mainly
deposed regarding preparing of scaled map. PW-7 Tilak Raj, DSP mainly
deposed regarding the investigation of the case. He also stated that he
recorded the statement Ex.PG of Parkash Chand correctly without any
addition and omission. PW-8 HC Manoj Kumar, PW-9 HC Harpal Singh
and PW-10 PHC are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their
affidavits Exs.PJ, PK and PL respectively. The Public Prosecutor then
closed the evidence.
After closing of prosecution evidence, the accused was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence
of the prosecution. He stated that he is innocent and had been falsely
GH
CO
UR
T
PU
NJ
AB
& H
AR
YA
NA
H
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [8]
implicated in this case. In defence no witness has been produced.
After going through the evidence and material on record, the
learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the
offence as mentioned above.
At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant
mainly argued that there is no evidence against the accused-appellant. PW-
4 Parkash Chand has not supported the prosecution version. The other eye
witness PW-5 Des Raj in cross-examination has admitted that he was not
present at the spot and was in Dasuya at the time of occurrence. This
witness has also not seen the occurrence. Therefore, there is no
incriminating evidence against the accused-appellant. Learned counsel for
the appellant also argued that no other witness was examined to support and
corroborate the prosecution version
On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General,
Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that case of the
prosecution has been duly proved by Des Raj-complainant. The Court has
to scrutinize the evidence of the witness and to reach at the truth. The
statement made by the complainant PW-5 in cross-examination cannot be
believed whereas the statement in examination-in-chief can be relied upon.
She further argued that recovery of blood stained 'Data? in pursuance of the
disclosure statement supports and corroborates the prosecution version.
The FSL report stating that the 'Data? was stained with blood further
supports and corroborates the prosecution version. She further argued that
the murder took place in the house of Parkash Chand and there is no cogent
-
z a-
PU
NJAB
&
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [9]
explanation given by him. She argued that other witnesses, who were given
up, were not material witnesses, therefore, on this ground no reasonable
doubt exists in the prosecution version. She argued that the case of the
prosecution is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt and there being no
merit in the appeal, the same should be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.
First of all it is a case of direct evidence. As per prosecution
version, complainant PW-5 Des Raj and PW-4 Parkash Chand had seen the
occurrence. Parkash Chand is father of deceased Pooja Devi and Des Raj is
father of deceased Jyoti. Two young girls had been murdered in the house
of Parkash Chand at night time by Rakesh Kumar-brother of Pooja Devi and
cousin of Jyoti. PW-5 who got recorded the FIR has deposed consistently as
per prosecution version and has stated that he and Parkash Chand were
sleeping in a separate room in the same house. Rakesh Kumar came from
outside after eating and drinking and then he killed both the above said
girls. He had seen appellant-Rakesh Kumar killing both the girls. Then the
appellant ran away from the spot. He stated that his statement was recorded,
which is Ex.PW.5/A. From the record, we find that chief-examination was
conducted on one date, then the cross-examination was deferred and he was
cross-examined after a gap of time and then the witness in cross-
examination resiled from his statement. However, he admitted the fact in
the cross-examination that his wife Krishna Rani was operated upon and
was admitted in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. There is no explanation given
0 L)
z
PU
NJA
B &
HA
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [10]
by this witness why he made statement in chief-examination by stating that
he was present at the spot and had seen accused causing injuries and killing
both the girls. There is no explanation in the cross-examination that he
made statement in chief-examination under pressure or it was a false
statement. His statement in chief-examination is corroborated by FIR.
Therefore, his statement in cross-examination that he was not present at the
spot cannot be believed. He admitted his signatures indirectly by stating
that Police obtained his signatures on blank papers whereas in chief-
examination he admitted that he got recorded his statement before the
Police, which is Ex.PW.5/A. This version that Police obtained his signatures
on blank papers in cross-examination cannot be believed. The presence of
PW-5 at the place of occurrence also looks natural as his wife was admitted
in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, which fact is not disputed. The complainant
used to look after his wife Krishna Devi. The version given in chief-
examination is reliable and can be believed and the version given in the
cross-examination by PW-5 cannot be believed. It looks otherwise unnatural
that Police came to him along with Parkash Chand at Dasuya and taken him
to Dinanagar and then the Police told regarding the murder of his daughter
Jyoti. Therefore, on careful scrutiny of the evidence, we believe the chief-
examination stated by PW-5 as correct and reliable statement. The
statement given in cross-examination by PW-5 and resiling from the same in
cross-examination may be due to the close relations with the accused. This
was also the reason that PW-4 Parkash Chand, who is father of the accused,
had also resiled from his statement. The statement of PW-5 Des Raj in
CO
z
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [11]
chief-examination has been duly supported and corroborated by medical
evidence and further by recovery of blood stained 'Data? by the accused in
pursuance of his disclosure statement. As per FSL report, 'Datar' was found
stained with blood.
The FIR in the present case is prompt one and there is no
unnecessary delay. There is also no reason or ground why the complainant,
who is close relative, will falsely implicate the appellant in this case.
Even no defence evidence has been produced by the appellant
nor he had taken any specific plea in the statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. The appellant was supposed to be present in the house. The
murders had been committed in the house of Parkash Chand, by appellant
Rakesh Kumar and no explanation is coming how the murder of Pooja Devi
and Jyoti took place in the house at the night time. Blood stained earth was
also taken from the place of occurrence. Further we find that other PWs
Budh Raj, Gulshan or Tilak Raj neighbours etc. were not the material
witnesses. They were not eye witnesses of the occurrence. Therefore, their
non-examination, in no way, create any doubt in the prosecution version.
Further we find that blood stained 'Data? has been got recovered by the
accused-Rakesh Kumar in pursuance of his disclosure statement which also
supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The FSL report stating
that the 'Datar' was stained with blood further supports and corroborates the
prosecution version. There is no explanation from the accused how blood
came on the 'Data?. Even no defence evidence has been produced to show
the innocence of the accused. Similarly, even in the statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., there is nothing why case was registered against him. In the
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008
GH
CO
UR
T
PU
NJA
B &
HA
R
[12]
case of a witness, who is resiling from his statement, the Court is duty
bound to scrutinize the evidence carefully to separate truth from the
falsehood. The Court is to separate the grain from the 'chaff.
In the case State v. Ram Prasad Mishra and another, AIR 1957
SC 366, it has been held that the evidence of hostile witness would not be
totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but
can be subjected to close scrutiny and the portion of the evidence which is
consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.
Therefore, we accept the statement of PW-5 Des Raj given in chief-
examination as a true version and the statement given in cross-examination
as false. From the evidence on record, it is also clear that PW-4 Parkash
Chand being father of the accused has resiled from his statement.
However, he has been confronted with the statement recorded by the Police
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v.
State (NCT) of Delhi, 2011 (2) RCR (Cr.) 920 held as under:
"No doubt a statement to the Police is ordinarily not admissible
in evidence in view of Section 162(1) Criminal Procedure
Code, but as mentioned in the proviso to Section 162(1)
Criminal Procedure Code it can be used to contradict the
testimony of a witness. Smt. Dhillo Devi also appeared as a
witness before the trial Court, and in her cross examination, she
was confronted with her statement to the Police to whom she
had stated that her son (the accused) had told her that he had
killed Seema. On being so confronted with her statement to the
police she denied that she had made such statement.
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [13]
We are of the opinion that the statement of Smt. Dhillo
Devi to the police can be taken into consideration in view of
the proviso to Section 162 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, and
her subsequent denial in court is not believable because she
obviously had afterthoughts and wanted to save her son (the
accused) from punishment. In fact in her statement to the
police she had stated that the dead body of Seema was removed
from the bed and placed on the floor. When she was confronted
with this statement in the court she denied that she had made
such statement before the police. We are of the opinion that her
statement to the police can be taken into consideration in view
of the proviso of Section 162(1) Criminal Procedure Code."
Therefore, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the statement given by Prakash Chand before the Police can
be taken into consideration. The statement of Parkash Chand has been duly
proved by PW-7 Tilak Raj, DSP, who stated that he recorded the statement
Ex.PG of Parkash Chand correctly without any addition or omission.
Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that prosecution has duly
proved its case by leading cogent evidence. It has been duly proved that
accused Rakesh Kumar has committed murder of Pooja and Jyoti and he has
been rightly convicted and sentenced. Therefore, from the above
discussion, Criminal Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 filed by appellant is
dismissed.
Before parting with the judgment, we find that in the present
GH
CO
UR
T
PU
NJA
B &
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [14]
case PW-5 Des Raj was examined-in-chief on 25.5.2007 and cross-
examination was deferred and he was cross-examined on 2.1.2008. While
deferring his cross-examination, no reason or ground has been given by the
trial Court. This witness has been cross-examined after a long delay.
Section 309 Cr.P.C. deals with power to postpone or adjourn proceedings,
which reads as under:-
"309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.- (1) In
every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as
expeditiously as possible, and in particular when the
examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be
continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance
have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of
the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons
to be recorded:
Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an
offence under sections 376 to 376D of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible, be
completed within a period of two months from the date of
commencement of the examination of witnesses.
(2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or
commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to
postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or
trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded,
postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit,
for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a
1X3
z 4:C
[15] Cr. Anneal No.D-796-DB of 2008
warrant remand the accused if in custody:
Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused
person to custody under this section for a term exceeding
fifteen days at a time:
Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance,
no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without
examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in
writing:
Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for
the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause
against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.
Provided also that-
(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party,
except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that
Party;
(b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another
Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;
(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his
pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present
in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness,
the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness
and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the
examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as
the case may be.
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [16]
Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise
a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence,
and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a
remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.
Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or
postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the
payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused." (emphasis
added).
A perusal of the record of this case shows that the adjournment in this
case had been given by the trial Court in a casual manner which resulted in
resiling from the statement by PW-5 Des Raj. It is the duty of the trial Court
to supervise the sessions trial effectively. A perusal of the record shows that
when PW-5 was cross-examined, no question had been asked by the Court
whether his statement in examination-in-chief was correct or in cross-
examination was correct. No explanation was sought from the witness that
he gave two contradictory statements in examination-in-chief and cross-
examination. There is also no question by the Court why he signed on
blank papers at the asking of the Police. From the record of this case, we
further find that even the role of the Public prosecutor is not upto to the
mark. He should have declared the witness PW-5 hostile in the cross-
examination but he has not opted for the same. Giving up PWs by making
statement is another instance which shows that even the Public Prosecutor
has not taken keen interest in conducting the trial properly.
Therefore, the Registrar (General) of this Court is directed to
circulate a copy of this judgment to all the Sessions Judges in the States of
Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [17]
Punjab and Haryana and the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, to further
circulate it to all the Judicial Officers working in their respective Sessions
Divisions, with instructions to keep in mind the provision of Section 309
Cr.P.C., while postponing or adjourning the hearing of the criminal cases,
particularly, when a material witness in a criminal trial has been partly
examined. SD/- SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
JUDGE
November 6, 2012.
SD/- INDERJIT SINGH JUDGE
TRUE COPY
2811 113 EXAMINER /