Allahabad High Court
Haripal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P.And Another on 4 February, 2011
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 42 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1820 of 2011 Petitioner :- Haripal Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Another Petitioner Counsel :- Radhey Shyam Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
1. Heard Mr. Radhey Shyma Shukla for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 08.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No. 45 of 1996 (State Vs. Haripal Singh and others).
3. Mr. Radhey Shyam Shukla submitted that the applicants, who are accused in the aforesaid sessions trial, moved an application for recalling P.W.6 Daya Ram Singh, I.O., and P.W.7 Dr. A.P. Mishra for proving the facts of the cross case as well as the injuries of the accused side. Mr. Radhey Shyma Shukla further submitted that the aforesaid witnesses have not been cross-examined in regard to the cross version as well as injuries of the accused side, therefore, the applicants' defence would be seriously prejudiced if the cross version and the accused side injuries are not brought on record. Mr. Radhey Shyma Shukla lastly submitted that the accused side injuries proved in the cross case cannot be read any evidence in the present case. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that accused side injuries could be proved by producing copies of the injury reports.
4. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that there was deliberate delay on the part of the applicants in moving the application for summoning the I.O. and Dr. A.P. Mishra because the sessions trial was of the year 1996. In my opinion, the rejection of the application moved by the applicants' on the ground of delay was not proper. If the statements of the investigating officer and the Dr. A.P. Mishra were necessary for dispensation of justice, it was not proper to reject the application only on the ground of delay, therefore, the learned trial court was required to see whether or not the statements of Dr. A.P. Mishra and the investigating officer were necessary in the process of dispensation of justice. If the answer was in affirmative, it ought to have been just and expedient to summon Dr. A.P. Mishra and I.O. for further cross-examination. So far as the delay in moving the application is concerned, it has no relevance in view of the fact that the delay could be adequatly compensanate with costs.
5. It is well settled that if in regard to an incident there are two versions, one of the accused and the other of the prosecution, then, both the cases arising out of the incident, have to be tried simultaneously in the same court though separately. But the evidence recorded in one case cannot be read as evidence in the other case. If the accused of one case intends to prove his injuries, he has to prove the injuries by examining the doctor or by adducing secondary evidence in accordance with law. The injuries sustained by the accused cannot be proved by producing certified copies obtained from the record of the cross- case.
6. In the present case, Dr. A.P. Mishra had also medically examined the injured persons of the accused side, therefore, the accused side injuries could be proved only by Dr. A.P. Mishra. In this view of the matter, the prayer for further cross-examinatin of Dr. A.P. Mishra for proving the accused side injuries seems to be very material for the proper decision of the case. The statement of P.W.6 Daya Ram Singh, I.O., who had investigated also the cross case, will assist the court to find out the cross version ( the story of the cross case), therefore, it cannot be contended that further cross-examination of P.W.6 Daya Ram Singh and P.W.7 Dr. A.P. Mishra was not necessary for dispensation of justice.
7. For the reasons stated above, the application moved by the applicants for summoning the aforesaid witnesses for further cross-examination is allowed. The learned trial court is directed to summon P.W.6 Daya Ram Singh and P.W.7 Dr. A.P. Mishra for further cross-examination. Applicants are permitted to cross-examine P.W.6 Daya Ram Singh only in regard to the charge-sheet as well as the facts relating to the cross case.
8. The applicants are further permitted to cross-examine P.W.7 Dr. A.P. Mishra for proving the accused side injuries only.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.2.2011 Sunil Kr Tiwari