Dismissed

Tejram Son of Rattiram, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2024CRLMP/6005/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special Criminal Court dismissed an SSM petition challenging the rejection of an application to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The High Court of Rajasthan upholding the lower court's reasoning that the application was made at the wrong stage.

What did the court decide?

The petition praying for the recall of a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed; pending applications were disposed of.

Tejram Son of Rattiram, Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:38902]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6005/2024

¶4

Tejram Son Of Rattiram, Resident Of Ghatitala, Police Station Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

12/09/2024

¶13

The present petition is filed assailing the order dated 02.09.2024, passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST cases), Alwar (Raj.), in Case No. 46/2019 titled as State vs. Tejram and Ors., whereby, learned Special Judge dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed an application (Annexure-1) under Section 311 of Cr.P.C with a prayer to re-call a witness named Jai Kishan s/o Chiranjilal Gurjar resident of Ghati Tala, P.S. Malakhera, Alwar, to record the statements.

¶15

It is further submitted that learned Trial Court has wrongly dismissed the said application, without considering the fact that one of the prime witnesses -Jai Singh, who was present at the place of incident was never represented before the Court by the prosecution.

[2024:RJ-JP:38902]

[CRLMP-6005/2024]

(2 of 3)

Considering the arguments averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the record it is noted that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the said application has observed:-

¶20

4.1 That the instant matter was registered under Section 302/149 of IPC, qua which charges were framed on 13.01.2017. 4.2 That the evidences of prosecution were closed on 08.07.2024 and evidences of defense were closed on 12.08.2024, thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.

¶21

4.3 That the application to recall the witness was filed at the stage of final arguments whereby, the petitioner prayed to recall the witness Jai Kishan/Jai Singh which explicitly implies that the witness was called and examined at the stage of examination. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced herein below:-

¶22

“ gLrxr izkFkZuk i= ds tfj;s vfHk;qDr us xokg t;flag iq= fpjathyky dks crkSj xokg fj&dkWy djus dk fuosnu fd;k gSA i=koyh ds voyksdu ls ;g izdV gksrk gS fd vkjksii= ds lkFk izLrqr xokg lwph esa t;flag iq= fpjathyky uked dksbZ xokg ugha gS] fdUrq t;fd”ku iq= fpjathyky uked xokg dk mYys[k Øe la[;k 4 ij gSA vfHk;kstu i{k ds }kjk bl xokg dks iwoZ esa izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gS blfy, fj&dkWy dk iz”u gh mRiUu ugha gksrkA vfHk;qDr us xokg dks crkSj cpko lk{kh izLrqr ugha djuk pkgk gSA ;g Hkh Lohd`fr fLFkfr gSA vfHk;qDr xokg dks ryc djokdj vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls xokg fd lk{; ys[kc) djokuk pkgrk gS] fdUrq vkjksii= vfHk;kstu i{k }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk] vfHk;kstu i{k vius ekeys dks izekf.kr djus ds fy, fdl xokg ds lk{; ys[kc) djokuk pkgrk gS ;g vfHk;kstu i{k dk Lofoosd gS] vfHk;qDr dks ;g vf/kdkj ugha gS fd og vfHk;sktu dh vksj ls xokg dh lk{; ys[kc) djokus ckcr~ izkFkZuk i= izLrqr dj vuqrks’k pkgsA vU;Fkk Hkh vfHk;qDr us fdl izko/kku ds rgr~ ;g izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gS mlesa ,slk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gS fd xokg dks fdlh fof”k’V i{k dh vksj ls c;ku nsus ckcr~ U;k;ky; esa ryc fd;k tkosA

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:38902]

[CRLMP-6005/2024]

bl izdkj Lohd`r :i ls vfHk;qDr us izkFkZuk i= esa of.kZr xokg dsk crkSj cpko lk{kh ryc djus dh okaNk dgh dh gS rFkk vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls fdlh xokg dh lk{; ys[kc) djokus dk vfHk;qDr ds dksbZ vf/kdkj ugha gSA xokg iwoZ esa dHkh ryc ugha fd;k x;k gS uk gh mldh lk{; ys[kc) fjdkMZ gS ,slh fLFkfr esa xokg dks fj&dkWy dk Hkh] dksbZ vk/kkj fo|eku ugha gSA ”

¶27

Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the instant matter, this Court is of the view that the order dated 02.09.2024 is sans any arbitrariness and illegality. Moreover, the said order is a well reasoned speaking order.

¶28

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶29

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶30

DEEPAK/14

Tejram Son of Rattiram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejram Son of Rattiram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gauri Shankar S/O Shri Brij Kishor B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Kumbho Urf Kunwar Singh S/O Babu Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Satveer Singh S/O Shri Dhaniram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Harish Chand S/O Shri Radhey Shyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Tushar Taluja S/O Shri Subhash Chandra Taluja, Vs State of Rajasthan

Tushar Taluja S/O Shri Subhash Chandra Taluja, Vs State of Rajasthan