Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Raju vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 October, 2023

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                               1
                            IN     THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                                ON THE 17 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 4165 of 2023

                           BETWEEN:-
                           RAJU S/O KISHOREDAS, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
                           OCCUPATION: LABOUR 18/1, BHAWANI NAGAR THANA
                           BANGANGA SANWER ROAD INDORE (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                           (BY SHRI ADITYA RAJ SINGH SOLANKI - ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION HOUSE
                           OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION AZAD NAGAR
                           INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....RESPONDENTS
                           ( BY SHRI H.S.RATHORE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
                           RESPONDENTS STATE)

                                 This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                           following:
                                                                ORDER

Heard.

2. This revision under Section 397 / 401 of the Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 21.08.2023, passed by the trial Court whereby the right of the petitioner / accused to cross examine the prosecution witness (prosecutrix) has been closed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that one chance be given for cross examination so that injustice may not be accorded with the accused.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 18-10-2023 18:28:32 2

He relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Surendra Prasad and another Vs. The State of M.P. in Criminal Revision No. 2752 of 2022 dated 26.07.2022 and the order passed by the apex Court in the case of Honnaiah T.H Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in (2023) AIR (SC) Cri.58, wherein it has been held that a private complainant can file a revision petition in certain circumstances, including when the trial Court wrongly shuts out evidence which the prosecution wishes to produce.

4. Learned Government Advocate objected the same and submitted that if opportunity for cross examine is given to the accused then it should done only after imposing a heavy costs.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record.

6. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it appears that this order cannot be treated as interlocutory order and it shall be regarded as the order which affects the finality of the case. In the case of Honnaiah T.H (supra) it has been held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. A Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction against a final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being interlocutory in nature.

7. Since, the counsel engaged on behalf of the petitioner was to conduct the cross examination of the prosecutrix, but stated to be unwell and not available on that day, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, one more opportunity ought to have been granted by the trial Court to the petitioner to cross examine the prosecutrix .

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 18-10-2023 18:28:32 3

8. As a result, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to cross examine the prosecutrix subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioner. It is directed that out of total Rs. 10,000/- the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 8000/- in Legal Aid Services and Rs. 2000/- shall be given in cash to the prosecutrix as and when she appears before the Court.

9. Petitioner is also directed that in every circumstances the cross examination should be conducted and further no chance will be given and if on the next date due to any other reason like Presiding Officer is on leave or any other causality only one chance be given to the petitioner to cross examine the prosecutrix. Government Advocate is also directed to produce the prosecutrix on the date fixed, accordingly.

With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed off.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE rashmi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 18-10-2023 18:28:32