Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramadhar Singh Gond vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 January, 2023
Author: Rajendra Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajendra Kumar Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
ON THE 31 st OF JANUARY, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 61259 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAMADHAR SINGH GOND S/O SHRI PREMLAL SINGH
GOND, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURE, R/O VILLAGE DULADAR, POLICE
STATION GOHPARU, DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION GOHPARU DISTRICT SHAHDOL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM-A
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS. SHAKTI TRIPATHI - PANEL LAWYER)
(NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 THOUGH SERVED)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashment o f order dated 12.11.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act/O.A.W. Shahdol, District Shahdol in S.T. No.190/2019 arising out of Crime No.219/2019, Police Station Gohparu, Signature Not Verified District Shahdol for offence under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC whereby the SAN Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2023.02.04 13:25:53 IST learned Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/accused 2 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal procedure (in short .... "the Cr.P.C.").
The present petitioner/accused is facing trial in Sessions Trial No.190/2019 for offences under Sections 376 and 506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Gohparu, District Shahdol for the said offence vide Crime No.219/2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that during trial statement of prosecurix (PW-2) was recorded on 25.09.2019 before the trial Court and she in examination-in-chief stated that the applicant was forcefully committed the alleged offence with her by giving threat to kill, and thereafter, her cross-examination was conducted. He also submits that during her cross-
examination, counsel did not ask the question with regard to threat given by the petitioner and just to bring such facts, preferred an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for recalling of prosecution witness (PW-2) on particular point and to prove the innocence of the petitioner/accused. It is further submitted that there is no material available on record regarding commission of alleged offence with the respondent No.2, therefore, particular question is required to be cross-examined. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner/accused and committed a serious error in not taking into consideration that the petitioner/accused has the right to prove his innocence. Therefore, impugned order passed by the trial Court is erroneous, illegal and without proper application of mind. Hence, prays that this petition be allowed and the order passed by the trial Court be quashed and permit the petitioner/accused to cross-examine PW-2.
Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prays for dismissal Signature Not Verified SAN of the petition by submitting that the application has not been filed in a bonafide Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2023.02.04 13:25:53 IST manner.
3Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. From perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner/accused was having sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness (PW-2). Prosecution witness has already been cross-examined and re-examined on 25.09.2022 by the defence counsel, but he has not availed the opportunity granted to him.
It is settled law that the Court has inherent power to recall a witness if it is satisfied that he is prepared to give evidence which is materially different from what he had given at the trial. In this case, there was no material upon which the Court could be so satisfied. In the case of Mishrilal Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2005(10) SCC 701, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the witness was examined-in-chief and cross-examined fully, such witness should not have been recalled and re-examined to deny the evidence he had already given before the Court, even though that witness had given an inconsistent statement before any other Court or forum subsequently.
On perusal of the impugned order, in the present case also the petitioner has examined and cross-examined fully. The petitioner has not assigned any valid reason why the witness has to be re-examined.
Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, no case for quashment of order dated 12.11.2022, as prayed is made out.
The petition is without any merits and is dismissed accordingly.
Signature Not Verified SAN(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2023.02.04 13:25:53 IST JUDGE kafeel 4 Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KAFEEL AHMED ANSARI Date: 2023.02.04 13:25:53 IST