SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nageshwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2019

-1- CRR NO.115/2019

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT INDORE
CRR NO.115/2019
Nageshwar s/o Radheshyam Bawri vs. State of M.P
22.01.2019 (INDORE):
Shri A.K.Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rakesh Maheshwari, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant seeks to
withdraw IA No.145/19, which is an application for stay.

Accordingly, IA No.145/19 is rejected as withdrawn.
Heard on admission.

This revision petition under section 397 read with
section 401 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the applicant
against the order dated 20.12.2018 passed by IIIrd ASJ,
Mandsaur in S.T.No.125/2015 whereby learned trial Court
has rejected the application filed by the applicant under
section 311 Cr.P.C.

The applicant has been facing trial in sessions trial
No.125/2015 in respect of charge under section 354 IPC and
the prosecution witnesses have already been examined. At
the defence evidence stage, an application under section 311
Cr.P.C was filed by the applicant seeking to further cross
examine the complainant in respect of a document which is
exhibited as Ex.P/15. As per the learned counsel, this

-2- CRR NO.115/2019

document purports to show previous relations between the
complainant and the applicant and this document has been
shown to be important on defence. The perusal of the
impugned order shows that as many as 14 opportunities were
already granted to the defence for evidence and due to such
lapse on the part of the applicant, the trial Court has rejected
the application under section 311 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for fair
trial and ends of justice such an application should have been
allowed by the learned trial Court. In the alternative he
prayed that in the event of this petition being rejected, liberty
be granted to the applicant to raise the ingredients of Ex.P/15
at the time of final arguments.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in
view of the lapse on the part of the defence, the trial Court
did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application
under section 311 Cr.P.C.

Considered rival contentions.

Apparently, while considering an application filed
under section 311 Cr.P.C the Courts are required to consider
the interests of victims/witnesses and prosecution along with
all accused and that while considering the concept of fair
trial and interest of justice, a balance has to be struck
between the two contrasting interests. However, the
impugned order shows that as many as 14 opportunities have

-3- CRR NO.115/2019

been given for defence evidence and thereafter such an
application was filed even though this document was already
placed on record. In view of the above, no interference is
called for in the impugned order. Accordingly, the revision
petition is dismissed. However, within the ambit of legality
the liberty as prayed for is granted.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Digitally signed by Hari
Kumar Nair
Date: 2019.01.23 10:23:46
+05’30’
hk/

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation