through e - cja.gov.in

Through E.mail

No. r12.1cr Gaz. 11.17.

From

The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh.

To

All the District & Sessions Judges in the State of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh.

Dated: Chandigarh; the < < o j - 1 3 Subject: Circulation-copy Of orders dated 06.11.2012 passed by Hon'ble

Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh, in Crl. Appeal No. D-796-DB of 2008.

Sir/Madam,

I am directed to refer you on the subject cited above and to

forward herewith a copy of orders dated 06.11.2012 in Crl. Appeal No.

D-796-DB of 2008 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Punjab with the

request to circulate the same amongst all the Judicial Officers or any quasi

judicial authority presided over by the Judicial Officers posted in your

respective Sessions Division to keep in mind the provision of Section 309

Cr.P.C., while postponing or adjourning the hearing of the criminal cases,

particularly, when a material witness in a criminal trial has been partly

examined.

Kindly acknowledge the receipt of this communication.

Yours faithfully,

Deputy Registrar (Gaz. II) Encl:-As above. For Registrar General Endst No. f ec-3 I c p i Gaz.II(17) Dated 2 c, A copy is forwarded to the following officers for information and necessary action, if any:- 1. L.R., Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. 2. Director (Admn.), Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh. 3. The Principal Secretary-cum-Registrar to Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 4. PS/PA/Reader/Steno to all Ld. Registrars; 5. PS/PA/Steno to all Ld. OSDs; 6. Member Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, Punjab, Haryana and

U.T., Chandigarh. 7. Supdt. (Rules) 8. Supdt. (Computer) 9. Supdt. (Confidential) c \"^a21 10.Supdt. (Criminal) Deputy Registrar (Gaz. II)

For Registrar General

14340 H.C.—Item 1-20,000—Govt. Press. U.T., Chd.

Respondent , ■•=1.*. 4-qr-our

Appeal from the order of --.4i4206 —J

Opening Sheet for Criminal Appeals (Section 419, Criminal Proced are)

In the High Court of the States of

Punjab and Haryana

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal 1-Appeal No. 4----Q-6of GOO

Divisional Register No.

Whether filed by appellant District Date of filing Petition in person or by Counsel

or Agent -

Stamp on Petition of appeal

LAAAAAJov-z 71ciaJ

versus

dated the —

Charge under section SCDD-r-

ssnfevse

Ot-t.(4-1 4 l; /IA C6\".91

4./AA/■:_ Cv01A-"CAAVY

VEEN BHADU), ADVOCATE

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGAH

CRA No. r2-76.DB -- of 2008

MEMO OF PARTIES

Rakesh Kumar, son of Parkash Chand son of Buta Ram,

aged 20 years, Carpenter, caste Mahasha, resident of

village Bala Pindi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.

(Now Confined in Central Jail, Gurdaspur)

Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab Respondent

CHANDIGARH

DATED: 07.11.2008 COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Criminal Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008

Date of decision:6.11.2012

Rakesh Kumar ...Appellant

v.

State of Punjab

••••

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Kumar Mittal Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

...Respondent

Present: Mr. Praveen Bhadu, Advocate for the appellant.

Mrs. Ritu Punj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

This appeal has been filed by appellant-Rakesh Kumar against

the judgment and order dated 2.9.2008 passed by Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur

whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and

sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 25,000/- for

the offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Pooja Devi. He has

also been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of

25,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC for the

murder of Jyoti. However, both the substantive sentences have been

ordered to run concurrently.

z

03

z

0.

Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 [2]

FIR in the present case has been registered on the statement of

Des Raj, who mainly stated that his wife Krishna Rani had been admitted in

Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur about 7/8 days back for conducting stone

operation. He and his daughter Jyoti aged 16/17 years had come to Civil

Hospital at Gurdaspur to look after her. He had kept his daughter Jyoti in

the house of his brother-in-law Parkash Chand, resident of Village Bala

Pindi. He usually used to remain with his wife in the hospital to look after

her and in the night he used to go to the house of his brother-in-law Parkash

Chand for sleeping. He further stated that on 19.9.2006, after leaving his

sister Yash Rani with his wife, he came to the house of Parkash Chand. In

the night after taking meals, he and Parkash Chand slept in one room, his

daughter Jyoti, Parkash Chand's daughter Pooja Devi aged 18/19 years and

Rakesh Kumar aged 26/27 years son of Parkash Chand slept in another

room on separate beds. On the intervening night of 19/20.9.2006 at about

12.30 a.m., the complainant heard loud shrieks. He and Parkash Chand

came out of the room and saw that Rakesh Kumar son of Parkash Chand,

who was having small 'Datar' in his hand, was inflicting blows on his sister-

Pooja. Pooja Devi in order to save herself jumped across the wall of her

house and entered in the adjacent house of her neighbour. Rakesh Kumar

followed Pooja Devi with 'Data? after scaling over the wall and gave many

'Datar' blows on her within his and Parkash Chand's sight. She fell on the

ground. Complainant and his brother-in-law raised alarm, then Rakesh

Kumar ran away from the spot with 'Data?. On reaching there, they saw

that Pooja Devi had received many injuries on her body. After coming back

GH

CO

UR

T

PU

NJ

AB

& H

AR

YA

NA

H

Cr. Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008

[3]

in the room, the complainant saw that the neck of his daughter Jyoti had

been amputated with 'Datar' while she was sleeping and she had died. After

arranging vehicle, he and his brother-in-law and Gulshan Kumar took Pooja

Devi to Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, who died near the hospital. Motive

behind this occurrence was that Rakesh Kumar had suspicion on the

character of his sister Pooja and cousin Jyoti and they were out of his

control. Due to this reason, Rakesh Kumar had killed Pooja and Jyoti.

After recording the statement of the complainant by Inspector Tilak Raj,

SHO, Police Station Dinanagar at 4.10 a.m., 'Ruqa' was sent to the Police

Station, on the basis of which formal FIR was registered.

Inspector Tilak Raj, SHO then went to the spot i.e. the house of

Parkash Chand. Dead body of Jyoti was found lying there on a cot. He

inspected the spot and prepared inquest report. He took into possession

blood stained earth after preparing sealed a parcel. He also took into Police

possession the blood stained folding bed etc. Then he went to Civil

Hospital where dead body of Pooja was lying. He prepared inquest report.

Dead bodies were sent for getting conducted post-mortem examination. On

that very day, he arrested accused Rakesh Kumar. On 23.9.2006, during the

course of interrogation, the accused made disclosure statement and then in

pursuance of his disclosure statement he got recovered blood stained

'Datar'. Rough site plan of the place of recovery was prepared and the

'Datar' was taken into Police possession after preparing a sealed parcel. On

24.9.2006, accused produced before him his blood stained clothes.

Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After necessary investigation,

the challan was presented.


On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie

charge against accused-appellant Rakesh Kumar, framed charge for the

offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Pooja Devi and Jyoti. The

accused pleaded not guilty to above charge and claimed trial.

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Dr.

Manoj Gupta, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Jyoti on

20.9.2006 and found the following injuries:-

"1. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm on left part of face from

medial end of left eye brow downward to cheek. Clotted blood

present underlying bones of orbit surrounding nasal bones and

bones of face crushed and fractured at multiple sides.

Dissection revealed multiple injuries underlying muscles,

nerves and vessels.

2. Big incised wound 15 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm on right side of

neck obliquely placed extending from posterior hairline

towards mid line of body anteriorly. Clotted blood present.

Underlying muscles, nerves, vessels cut at multiple places.

Further exploration revealed fracture of cervical vertebra at

multiple places.

3. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 5 cm on extensive surface of

middle of right hand. Clotted blood present. Underlying

bones fractured and tendons, muscles and vessels cut.

4. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on extensor surface of

middle of left hand. Underlying bones cut and fractured.

Underlying tendons, muscles and vessels cut and crushed at

AN

A H

IGH

P

UN

JA

B &

HA

R


[5]

multiple places.

5. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right inguinal

region obliquely placed. Underlying vessels, nerves and

muscles cut."

In his opinion the cause of death in this case was due to injuries to

vital organ, haemorrhage and shock caused due to injuries No.1 and 2. All

injuries were found ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp edged

weapon.

On the same day, he also conducted post-mortem examination

on the dead body of Pooja Devi and found the following injuries:-

"1. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm on right side of cheek

and nose. Clotted blood present. Underlying bones of face and

nose cut and fractured at multiple places. Dissection revealed

multiple cut injuries to underlying muscles, nerves and vessels.

2. Incised wound 4 cm x 0.5 cm on chin lower part underlying

bones cut and fractured at multiple places, muscles, vessels

cut.

3. Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on head back in right

occipital regions obliquely placed. Underlying skull bone

cut and fractured at multiple places. Further dissection

revealed cut on right occipital lobe or brain.

4. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on left forearm middle

part. Underlying muscles, tendon, vessels cut.

5. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left wrist extensor

surface underlying muscles, tendon, vessels and bone cut.

GH

CO

UR

T

z

PUrJ

AB

&


6. Another incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on left hand

extensor surface 3 cm distal to injury No.5. Underlying

muscles tendons, vessels bone cut.

7. Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right forearm

middle part extensor surface. Underlying muscles bones,

tendons and vessels cut.

8. Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm on right hand extensor

surface. Underlying bones, vessels, verve's and tendons cut."

In his opinion, the cause of death in this case was due to injury to

vital organs, haemorrhage and shock due to injuries No.1 and 3. All injuries

were found ante-mortem in nature and caused with sharp edged weapon.

PW-2 Ashwani Kumar, Photographer mainly deposed regarding

the photographs Exs.P.1 to P.B. PW-3 PHC Vir Kumar is a formal witness,

who tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PF. PW-4 Parkash Chand is the

eye witness and brother-in-law of complainant Des Raj. He has not

supported the prosecution version and was declared hostile. He stated that

accused is his son. Des Raj PW-5 is his brother-in-law. Krishna Rani is

wife of Des Raj. She had kidney problem and was admitted in Civil

Hospital, Gurdaspur. Deceased Jyoti was daughter of Des Raj. Jyoti came

to his house on the intervening night of 19/20.9.2006. He was not present

in his house. On the intervening night, Jyoti and Pooja Devi were murdered

in his house but he did not know who murdered Jyoti and Pooja Devi.

When his cross-examination was conducted by the Public Prosecutor, he

denied that his statement was recorded by the Police. He was duly

confronted with the statement but he denied the contents of the statement.


PW-5 Des Raj in his chief-examination deposed as per prosecution version.

His cross-examination was deferred and when he was cross-examined on

2.1.2008, he resiled from his statement and stated that on the intervening

night of 19/20.9.2006 he was present in his house at Dasuya. He also stated

in cross-examination that the Police accompanied by Parkash Chand PW-4

came to his house in the morning of 20.9.2006 and had brought him and his

son Ashwani Kumar, as also Parkash Chand to Dinanagar. It was for the

first time that at Police Station, Dinanagar the Police disclosed to him that

Jyoti and Pooja had been murdered. They went to Village Bala Pindi for the

first time on 20.9.2006 to cremate dead bodies of Pooja and Jyoti. He

further stated that Pooja and Jyoti were not murdered in his presence and he

was not present in Village Bala Pindi during the said intervening night. The

Police had obtained his signatures on blank papers and did not record any

proceedings in his presence. PW-6 Janak Singh Dhanjal, Draftsman mainly

deposed regarding preparing of scaled map. PW-7 Tilak Raj, DSP mainly

deposed regarding the investigation of the case. He also stated that he

recorded the statement Ex.PG of Parkash Chand correctly without any

addition and omission. PW-8 HC Manoj Kumar, PW-9 HC Harpal Singh

and PW-10 PHC are formal witnesses, who tendered in evidence their

affidavits Exs.PJ, PK and PL respectively. The Public Prosecutor then

closed the evidence.

After closing of prosecution evidence, the accused was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence

of the prosecution. He stated that he is innocent and had been falsely

GH

CO

UR

T

PU

NJ

AB

& H

AR

YA

NA

H


implicated in this case. In defence no witness has been produced.

After going through the evidence and material on record, the

learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the

offence as mentioned above.

At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant

mainly argued that there is no evidence against the accused-appellant. PW-

4 Parkash Chand has not supported the prosecution version. The other eye

witness PW-5 Des Raj in cross-examination has admitted that he was not

present at the spot and was in Dasuya at the time of occurrence. This

witness has also not seen the occurrence. Therefore, there is no

incriminating evidence against the accused-appellant. Learned counsel for

the appellant also argued that no other witness was examined to support and

corroborate the prosecution version

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General,

Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that case of the

prosecution has been duly proved by Des Raj-complainant. The Court has

to scrutinize the evidence of the witness and to reach at the truth. The

statement made by the complainant PW-5 in cross-examination cannot be

believed whereas the statement in examination-in-chief can be relied upon.

She further argued that recovery of blood stained 'Data? in pursuance of the

disclosure statement supports and corroborates the prosecution version.

The FSL report stating that the 'Data? was stained with blood further

supports and corroborates the prosecution version. She further argued that

the murder took place in the house of Parkash Chand and there is no cogent

-

z a-

PU

NJAB

&


explanation given by him. She argued that other witnesses, who were given

up, were not material witnesses, therefore, on this ground no reasonable

doubt exists in the prosecution version. She argued that the case of the

prosecution is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt and there being no

merit in the appeal, the same should be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their

assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.

First of all it is a case of direct evidence. As per prosecution

version, complainant PW-5 Des Raj and PW-4 Parkash Chand had seen the

occurrence. Parkash Chand is father of deceased Pooja Devi and Des Raj is

father of deceased Jyoti. Two young girls had been murdered in the house

of Parkash Chand at night time by Rakesh Kumar-brother of Pooja Devi and

cousin of Jyoti. PW-5 who got recorded the FIR has deposed consistently as

per prosecution version and has stated that he and Parkash Chand were

sleeping in a separate room in the same house. Rakesh Kumar came from

outside after eating and drinking and then he killed both the above said

girls. He had seen appellant-Rakesh Kumar killing both the girls. Then the

appellant ran away from the spot. He stated that his statement was recorded,

which is Ex.PW.5/A. From the record, we find that chief-examination was

conducted on one date, then the cross-examination was deferred and he was

cross-examined after a gap of time and then the witness in cross-

examination resiled from his statement. However, he admitted the fact in

the cross-examination that his wife Krishna Rani was operated upon and

was admitted in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. There is no explanation given

0 L)

z

PU

NJA

B &

HA


by this witness why he made statement in chief-examination by stating that

he was present at the spot and had seen accused causing injuries and killing

both the girls. There is no explanation in the cross-examination that he

made statement in chief-examination under pressure or it was a false

statement. His statement in chief-examination is corroborated by FIR.

Therefore, his statement in cross-examination that he was not present at the

spot cannot be believed. He admitted his signatures indirectly by stating

that Police obtained his signatures on blank papers whereas in chief-

examination he admitted that he got recorded his statement before the

Police, which is Ex.PW.5/A. This version that Police obtained his signatures

on blank papers in cross-examination cannot be believed. The presence of

PW-5 at the place of occurrence also looks natural as his wife was admitted

in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur, which fact is not disputed. The complainant

used to look after his wife Krishna Devi. The version given in chief-

examination is reliable and can be believed and the version given in the

cross-examination by PW-5 cannot be believed. It looks otherwise unnatural

that Police came to him along with Parkash Chand at Dasuya and taken him

to Dinanagar and then the Police told regarding the murder of his daughter

Jyoti. Therefore, on careful scrutiny of the evidence, we believe the chief-

examination stated by PW-5 as correct and reliable statement. The

statement given in cross-examination by PW-5 and resiling from the same in

cross-examination may be due to the close relations with the accused. This

was also the reason that PW-4 Parkash Chand, who is father of the accused,

had also resiled from his statement. The statement of PW-5 Des Raj in

CO

z


chief-examination has been duly supported and corroborated by medical

evidence and further by recovery of blood stained 'Data? by the accused in

pursuance of his disclosure statement. As per FSL report, 'Datar' was found

stained with blood.

The FIR in the present case is prompt one and there is no

unnecessary delay. There is also no reason or ground why the complainant,

who is close relative, will falsely implicate the appellant in this case.

Even no defence evidence has been produced by the appellant

nor he had taken any specific plea in the statement under Section 313

Cr.P.C. The appellant was supposed to be present in the house. The

murders had been committed in the house of Parkash Chand, by appellant

Rakesh Kumar and no explanation is coming how the murder of Pooja Devi

and Jyoti took place in the house at the night time. Blood stained earth was

also taken from the place of occurrence. Further we find that other PWs

Budh Raj, Gulshan or Tilak Raj neighbours etc. were not the material

witnesses. They were not eye witnesses of the occurrence. Therefore, their

non-examination, in no way, create any doubt in the prosecution version.

Further we find that blood stained 'Data? has been got recovered by the

accused-Rakesh Kumar in pursuance of his disclosure statement which also

supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The FSL report stating

that the 'Datar' was stained with blood further supports and corroborates the

prosecution version. There is no explanation from the accused how blood

came on the 'Data?. Even no defence evidence has been produced to show

the innocence of the accused. Similarly, even in the statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C., there is nothing why case was registered against him. In the


GH

CO

UR

T

PU

NJA

B &

HA

R

[12]

case of a witness, who is resiling from his statement, the Court is duty

bound to scrutinize the evidence carefully to separate truth from the

falsehood. The Court is to separate the grain from the 'chaff.

In the case State v. Ram Prasad Mishra and another, AIR 1957

SC 366, it has been held that the evidence of hostile witness would not be

totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but

can be subjected to close scrutiny and the portion of the evidence which is

consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be accepted.

Therefore, we accept the statement of PW-5 Des Raj given in chief-

examination as a true version and the statement given in cross-examination

as false. From the evidence on record, it is also clear that PW-4 Parkash

Chand being father of the accused has resiled from his statement.

However, he has been confronted with the statement recorded by the Police

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v.

State (NCT) of Delhi, 2011 (2) RCR (Cr.) 920 held as under:

"No doubt a statement to the Police is ordinarily not admissible

in evidence in view of Section 162(1) Criminal Procedure

Code, but as mentioned in the proviso to Section 162(1)

Criminal Procedure Code it can be used to contradict the

testimony of a witness. Smt. Dhillo Devi also appeared as a

witness before the trial Court, and in her cross examination, she

was confronted with her statement to the Police to whom she

had stated that her son (the accused) had told her that he had

killed Seema. On being so confronted with her statement to the

police she denied that she had made such statement.


We are of the opinion that the statement of Smt. Dhillo

Devi to the police can be taken into consideration in view of

the proviso to Section 162 (1) Criminal Procedure Code, and

her subsequent denial in court is not believable because she

obviously had afterthoughts and wanted to save her son (the

accused) from punishment. In fact in her statement to the

police she had stated that the dead body of Seema was removed

from the bed and placed on the floor. When she was confronted

with this statement in the court she denied that she had made

such statement before the police. We are of the opinion that her

statement to the police can be taken into consideration in view

of the proviso of Section 162(1) Criminal Procedure Code."

Therefore, in view of the above law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, the statement given by Prakash Chand before the Police can

be taken into consideration. The statement of Parkash Chand has been duly

proved by PW-7 Tilak Raj, DSP, who stated that he recorded the statement

Ex.PG of Parkash Chand correctly without any addition or omission.

Therefore, from the evidence on record, we find that prosecution has duly

proved its case by leading cogent evidence. It has been duly proved that

accused Rakesh Kumar has committed murder of Pooja and Jyoti and he has

been rightly convicted and sentenced. Therefore, from the above

discussion, Criminal Appeal No.D-796-DB of 2008 filed by appellant is

dismissed.

Before parting with the judgment, we find that in the present

GH

CO

UR

T

PU

NJA

B &


case PW-5 Des Raj was examined-in-chief on 25.5.2007 and cross-

examination was deferred and he was cross-examined on 2.1.2008. While

deferring his cross-examination, no reason or ground has been given by the

trial Court. This witness has been cross-examined after a long delay.

Section 309 Cr.P.C. deals with power to postpone or adjourn proceedings,

which reads as under:-

"309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.- (1) In

every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be held as

expeditiously as possible, and in particular when the

examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be

continued from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance

have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of

the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons

to be recorded:

Provided that when the inquiry or trial relates to an

offence under sections 376 to 376D of the Indian Penal Code

(45 of 1860), the inquiry or trial shall, as far as possible, be

completed within a period of two months from the date of

commencement of the examination of witnesses.

(2) If the Court after taking cognizance of an offence, or

commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to

postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or

trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded,

postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit,

for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a

1X3

z 4:C

[15] Cr. Anneal No.D-796-DB of 2008

warrant remand the accused if in custody:

Provided that no Magistrate shall remand an accused

person to custody under this section for a term exceeding

fifteen days at a time:

Provided further that when witnesses are in attendance,

no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without

examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in

writing:

Provided also that no adjournment shall be granted for

the purpose only of enabling the accused person to show cause

against the sentence proposed to be imposed on him.

Provided also that-

(a) no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party,

except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that

Party;

(b) the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another

Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment;

(c) where a witness is present in Court but a party or his

pleader is not present or the party or his pleader though present

in Court, is not ready to examine or cross-examine the witness,

the Court may, if thinks fit, record the statement of the witness

and pass such orders as it thinks fit dispensing with the

examination-in-chief or cross-examination of the witness, as

the case may be.


Explanation 1.- If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise

a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence,

and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a

remand, this is a reasonable cause for a remand.

Explanation 2.- The terms on which an adjournment or

postponement may be granted include, in appropriate cases, the

payment of costs by the prosecution or the accused." (emphasis

added).

A perusal of the record of this case shows that the adjournment in this

case had been given by the trial Court in a casual manner which resulted in

resiling from the statement by PW-5 Des Raj. It is the duty of the trial Court

to supervise the sessions trial effectively. A perusal of the record shows that

when PW-5 was cross-examined, no question had been asked by the Court

whether his statement in examination-in-chief was correct or in cross-

examination was correct. No explanation was sought from the witness that

he gave two contradictory statements in examination-in-chief and cross-

examination. There is also no question by the Court why he signed on

blank papers at the asking of the Police. From the record of this case, we

further find that even the role of the Public prosecutor is not upto to the

mark. He should have declared the witness PW-5 hostile in the cross-

examination but he has not opted for the same. Giving up PWs by making

statement is another instance which shows that even the Public Prosecutor

has not taken keen interest in conducting the trial properly.

Therefore, the Registrar (General) of this Court is directed to

circulate a copy of this judgment to all the Sessions Judges in the States of


Punjab and Haryana and the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, to further

circulate it to all the Judicial Officers working in their respective Sessions

Divisions, with instructions to keep in mind the provision of Section 309

Cr.P.C., while postponing or adjourning the hearing of the criminal cases,

particularly, when a material witness in a criminal trial has been partly

examined. SD/- SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGE

November 6, 2012.

SD/- INDERJIT SINGH JUDGE

TRUE COPY

2811 113 EXAMINER /

through e - cja.gov.in

Documents