Sawai Singh & Anr vs State & Anr on 6 October, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1066 / 2017
1. Sawai Singh S/o Balu Singh

2. Snehlata W/o Sawai Singh, Both by Caste Rajput, Resident of
Anupshahar Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan

2. Ram Singh S/o Shakt Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident of
Shpoda P.S. Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.
—-Respondents
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.S.Chouhan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Rathi, P.P.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
06/10/2017

Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on

behalf of State.

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the

matter is being finally heard and decided today itself.

The petitioners are facing trial in the court of the ASJ,

Bhadra for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B I.P.C. in

the alternate 302/34 I.P.C. During trial, statements of material

prosecution witnesses viz. P.W.2 Ram Singh (complainant), P.W.4

Shakuntala, P.W.5 Hanuman Singh, P.W.6 Krishna Lal, P.W.8 Kesari

Singh, P.W.9 Ram Singh and P.W.12 Bhupendra Kumar were

recorded. Though significant cross-examination was made from

these witnesses but it appears that learned counsel representing
(2 of 3)
[CRLR-1066/2017]

the accused inadvertently missed the opportunity of confronting

the witnesses with their previous investigational statements even

though significant and material omissions and improvements exist

in both the versions.

Shri Chouhan learned counsel representing the petitioner

pointed out from the documents placed on record that the

witnesses have made significant improvements from their earlier

statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but somehow, the

learned counsel representing the accused petitioners missed out in

getting the earlier statements exhibited and the

omissions/improvements marked during cross-examination owing

to ignorance/inadvertence. He thus urges that the accused cannot

be made to suffer in the case carrying capital punishment for the

inadvertent omission on the part of defence counsel and craves

acceptance of the revision.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced

by the petitioners’ counsel. However, he too is not in a position to

dispute the fact that if the sworn statements of the prosecution

witnesses are seen vis-a-vis their earlier statements recorded

during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., apparently,

significant improvements and omissions are writ large in the two

versions. The accused are facing trial for an offence involving

capital punishment. If appropriate cross-examination is not

allowed to be conducted from the witnesses, then they can face

serious consequences. Law is well settled that a party should not

suffer owing to the mistake committed by the advocate. Thus, in

order to secure the ends of justice, the accused deserve one more
(3 of 3)
[CRLR-1066/2017]

opportunity to confront the witnesses concerned with their earlier

statements recorded during investigation under Section 161

Cr.P.C. and also further cross-examining the Investigating Officer

for proving such statements.

Resultantly, the revision deserves to be and is hereby

allowed. The impugned order dated 18.7.2017 is set aside. Upon

the petitioners depositing a cost of Rs.7000/- in the trial court, the

witnesses named above shall be recalled and the accused persons

shall be permitted to conduct further cross-examination from the

witnesses in reference to their earlier statements recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J.

/tarun goyal/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *