Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Isham Singh vs State Of Haryana on 6 January, 2014
Ø$
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2014
(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CRL.)NO.4269 OF 2013)
ISHAM SINGH APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Harayna at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No.869 of 2013 (O & M), dated 03.04.2013.
3. The appellant before us is the accused before the Trial Court and is facing trial for offences under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant-accused had filed two applications before the Trial Court. The first application relates to the summoning of six unofficial witnesses as defense witnesses. The second application is to summon two official witnesses as defense witnesses namely; Shri Randhir Singh, Sub Inspector stated to have presented the supplementary report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Shri Devender Yadav, IPS stated to have conducted an inquiry which inquiry report is stated to have been submitted by Shri Randhir Singh.
4. The learned Trial Judge has dismissed the first application on the ground that it is for the accused person to summon the witnesses by way of defense witnesses. Insofar as the second application is concerned, the learned Trial Court has partly allowed the application and summoned Shri Randhir Singh. Insofar as Shri Devinder Yadav is concerned, the Court has observed that the said officer had no role to play in the investigation at any point of time.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the appellant had preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court while disposing of the appeal has not interfered with the judgment and order so passed by the Trial Court.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
7. We have carefully examined the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court. In our considered opinion, both the Courts have not committed any error whatsoever which would call for our interference to exercise our powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed.
8. However, permission is granted to the appellant-accused, if he so desires, to summon all his unofficial witnesses as defense witnesses on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. The Trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the accused-
appellant to adduce his evidence, in the event of the accused person summoning those witnesses.
Ordered accordingly.
.......................J. (H.L. DATTU) .......................J. (S.A. BOBDE) NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 6, 2014
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.3 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4269/2013 (From the judgement and order dated 03/04/2013 in CRLR No.869/2013 of the HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH) ISHAM SINGH Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA Respondent(s) (With appln(s) for stay) Date: 06/01/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Petitioner(s) Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad,Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr.Manjit Singh, AAG for Mr.Kamal Mohan Gupta, Adv. UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal stands dismissed, in terms of the signed order.
(G.V.Ramana) (Vinod Kulvi)
Court Master Asstt.Registrar
(signed order is placed on the file)