Dismissed

Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Apr 2012CRR/1118/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision petition challenged the dismissal of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling a witness for further cross-examination. The revision court held the application defective for not specifying material questions and distinguished the cited precedent, ultimately dismissing the revision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dismissing the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was upheld; revision petition dismissed.

Rattan Singh Vs State of Haryana — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Crl. Revision No. 1118 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Revision No. 1118 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : April 24^th , 2012

Rattan Singh

.... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.... Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.

¶14

This is a revision petition brought by Rattan Singh challenging the orders dated 27.2.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Rohtak vide which the application filed by Rattan Singh accused/petitioner under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling Ram Bhaj (PW-1) for further cross-examination has been dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Ram Bhaj has been examined at the trial as PW-1. According to him, some material questions were left to be put to him during his crossexamination. He has submitted that putting of those material questions to the witness is the requirement of justice. According to him, the petitioner shall stand prejudiced if those questions were not put to Ram Bhaj in his

¶16

Crl. Revision No. 1118 of 2012

¶17

¶18

cross-examination. According to him, the object underlying section 311 Cr.P.C. is that there may not be failure of justice on account of mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the witnesses examined from either side. He has placed reliance in this regard on a decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. Vs. Computer Joint India Ltd. 2008 (3) RCR (Crl.) 897 . The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is based on the law laid down in the said case.

¶19

When asked as to whether the petitioner had been specific in his application in pointing out the material questions which could not be put to Ram Bhaj (PW-1), learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that the same is missing from the application. He has, however, submitted that Ram Bhaj is to be asked as to whether he had met his daughter in the hospital before she died.

¶20

Ram Bhaj has been cross-examined at length on behalf of the petitioner and others. As noticed by learned trial court, his statement in cross-examination runs in six pages and this cross-examination is there to the statement of Ram Bhaj which is less than two pages in his examination-in-chief. A perusal of the statement of the witness in the cross-examination would clearly show that he has answered the aforesaid question in the following part of his statement:-

¶21

“. . . We had reached to the medical the same night of the occurrence hiring the jeep. Myself, Phool Kumar, Ratan, Jaipal, Joginder, my son, Roshni my wife, Krishna my sister in law, Chameli wife of younger brother, Babita, wife of my son

¶22

Crl. Revision No. 1118 of 2012

¶23

¶24

were there in the jeep. We had reached after 12 O'clock in the night. My daughter had told the occurrence immediately to me and my wife on our arrival...”

¶25

No other material question is stated before me as having been left unasked from the witness. Since nothing was specified in the application in the name of material questions left to be asked from the witness, learned trial court had been fully justified in declining the prayer made in the application.

¶26

The peculiar facts of this case clearly show that the law laid down in Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd.'s (supra) has no application to the facts of this case because no document, as was a case in the reported case, is alleged to be with the petitioner, which could not be put to Ram Bhaj (PW-1). Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order justifying interference by this court. The revision petition is, consequently, dismissed.

¶27

(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE

¶28

April 24^th , 2012 som

Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rattan Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prem Devi and Ors. Vs Santokh Singh and Ors.

Kirpal Singh Vs Poonam and Ors.

Anuj Vs Joginder Pal and Ors.

Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Neha Vs Surender and Anr.

Chhaju Ram & Anr. Vs Hasan Deen & Ors.