Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at mail@myadvocates.club
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Crl. Trial Prosecution Produced Document Favouring Accused Prayer For Further Cross Of PWs Rejected.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Ramkesh Sharma Vs. State Of U.P. & Another On 26/06/2008 By Allahabad High Court
CASE NO : APPLICATION U/S 482 NO. 14303 OF 2008
CORAM : Hon'ble Raghunath Kishore Rastogi,J.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

AFR
Court No. 45

Criminal Misc. Application No.14303 Of 2008
Ramkesh Sharma Vs State Of U.P. & Another.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi, J.

This Is An Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. To Quash The Order Dated 9.4.08 Passed By Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Kanpur Dehat In Session Trial No. 192/06 State Vs. Ramkesh And Others.
I Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Applicant As Well As Learned A.G.A. For The State At The Stage Of Admission On Merits Also And Since The Point Involved In This Case Is Legal One, I Am Deciding It On Merits At This Stage.
The Facts Relevant For Disposal Of This Application Are That The Applicant Ramkesh And Co-accused Are Facing Trial Under Sections 498A, 304B I.P.C. And 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. The Prosecution Evidence Has Been Partly Recorded In This Case. P.W. 8 Produced By The Prosecution In The Court Proved The G.D. Entry No. 43 Dated 28.3.06 As Exhibit Ka-10 And The Application Of The Informant Shyam Babu Dated 28.3.06 (on The Basis Of Which It Was Prepared) As Exhibit Ka-11. Thereafter The Accused Moved An Application That Copies Of These Documents Had Not Been Furnished To Them And They Had No Knowledge Of These Documents, And Since These Documents Have Been Proved By P.W. 8, They Could Not Cross-examine The Earlier Witnesses In Respect Of These Documents, And So Permission Should Be Accorded To Them To Further Cross-examine P.W. 1 & 2 In Respect Of These Documents And Copies Of Exhibit Ka-10 & Ka-11 Should Be Provided To Them. This Application Was Rejected By The Learned Additional Sessions Judge After Hearing Both The Parties. Aggrieved With That Order, The Accused-applicant Has Filed This Application Under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
Before Proceeding With The Case It Will Be Useful To Note As To What Was Written In The Aforesaid Application (Exhibit Ka-11) Of Shyam Babu, The Informant In The Case. It Is To Be Seen That The Informant Shyam Babu Had Given An Information In Writing (Exhibit Ka-11) At P.S. Shivrajpur District Kanpur Nagar On 28.3.06 At 11.30 P.M. In Which He Stated That He Had Received An Information On Telephone That His Sister Bhanmati Who Had Been Married With Ramkesh Of Village Gopalpur Police Station Sheorajpur, Kanpur Nagar Had Committed Suicide By Burning Herself On 28.3.06 And That Her Dead Body Was Lying There In The House And He Had Come To The Police Station To Give This Information. It Was Also Stated In It That The Marriage Of Bhanmati And Ramkesh Had Taken Place About Four Years Ago. It Was Further Stated That There Did Not Appear Commission Of Any Offence. On The Basis Of This Written Application (Exhibit Ka-11) Given By Shyam Babu An Entry Was Made In The G.D. At Serial No. 43 (Exhibit Ka-10) And The Police Was Sent To The Spot. The Inquest Report Was Prepared And The Dead Body Was Sent For Post-mortem. According To The Post Mortem Report, The Cause Of Death Was Burn Injuries. No Other Injury Of Any Other Sort Was Found Upon The Dead Body Except Burn Injuries.
It May Be Pointed Out That After The Lapse Of Twelve Days From The Above Incident And The Aforesaid Report, The Informant Shyam Babu Moved Another Application At Police Station Sheorajpur On 9.4.06 In Which He Stated That In The Morning Of 29th March, 2006, He Came To Know That His Sister Bhanmati Had Been Actually Burnt By Her Husband And Mother-in-law Who Were Not Satisfied With The Dowry Given In The Marriage And They Were Demanding T.V., C.D. Player And Land For Construction Of A House And His Sister Had Told About These Demands To Her Mother And Bhabhi. He Further Stated In It That He Had Requested Her Husband And Mother-in-law Not To Commit Atrocities Upon Her, But They Burnt Her After Pouring Kerosene Oil Upon Her. It Was Prayed That Action Should Be Taken In The Matter.
On The Basis Of This Report Dated 9.4.06 A Case Under Sections 498A, 304-B I.P.C. And 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Was Registered Against The Accused Persons And After Investigation, The Charge Sheet Was Submitted Against The Accused Persons For The Above Offences For Which They Are Facing Trial.
Shyam Babu Was Examined As P.W. 1 In The Case. His Examination In Chief Was Recorded And Thereafter He Was Cross-examined By The Accused At Length. The Similar Is The Position In Respect Of Other Prosecution Witnesses And They Have Also Been Cross-examined At Length.
The Contention Of The Learned Counsel For The Accused Applicant Is That Copies Of The Aforesaid Documents Exhibit Ka-10 And Exhibit Ka-11 Had Not Been Furnished To Them And So They Could Not Cross-examine Aforesaid Shyam Babu In Respect Of The Above Documents. It Was Also Submitted That There Was No Occasion To Cross-examine The Aforesaid Witness On The Point As The Above Application Of Shyam Babu And The G. D. Entry Had Not Been Proved Earlier, And So It Was Prayed That Permission Should Be Granted To Cross-examine P.W. 1 And P.W. 2 On The Aforesaid Application Of Shyam Babu And The G.D. Entry. The Application Has Been Rejected By Learned Additional Sessions Judge Observing That Shyam Babu Had Already Been Cross-examined On This Point.
It Was Submitted By The Learned Counsel For The Applicant That It Was Essential For The Accused-applicant To Put Questions To The Informant Shyam Babu In Respect Of His Above Application Dated 28.3.06 And So Permission Should Be Granted To Put Questions To Shyam Babu In Respect Of This Application.
After A Perusal Of The Record, I Do Not Find Any Necessity To Summon Shyam Babu Or Any Other Witness For Further Cross-examination On The Aforesaid Application Of Shyam Babu And The G.D. Entry No. 43. It Is To Be Seen That There Is No Force In This Allegation That The Accused Had No Knowledge Of These Documents And So They Could Not Cross-examine The Witnesses On These Documents. This Application Of The Informant Shyam Babu Dated 28.3.06 (Exhibit Ka-11) And The G.D. Entry No. 43 (Exhibit Ka-10) At The Police Station Were In The Knowledge Of The Accused-applicants And Bail Was Granted Vide Order Dated 26.6.06 To Rama Devi Sharma On The Basis Of These Very Documents On The Ground Of Absence Of Any Allegation Of Demand Of Dowry In These Documents. There Is No Force In This Plea Also That The Questions Could Not Be Put In Respect Of These Documents Earlier Because They Had Not Been Proved. If This Contention Is Accepted, It Would Not Be Possible To Cross-examine Any Witness Of Fact On Any Document Prior To Examination Of The Formal Witnesses Summoned To Prove That Document. Anyhow, The Most Noteworthy Aspect Is That These Documents Exhibit Ka-10 And Exhibit Ka-11 Are Not Against The Accused-applicant, But In His Favour. If The Copy Of Any Document Supporting The Prosecution Case Had Not Been Supplied By The Prosecution, The Accused Would Have Been Justified To Seek An Opportunity To Further Cross-examine The Prosecution Witnesses On That Document, But When The Documents Are In Favour Of The Accused-applicant, There Is No Necessity To Cross-examine Any Prosecution Witness On Those Documents And The Accused Can Safely Rely On These Documents As They Have Been Proved By The Prosecution. Hence No Cross-examination Of Shyam Babu P.W. 1 & 2 Is Necessary On These Documents.
Under These Circumstances, I Am Of The View That The Learned Additional Sessions Judge Has Not Committed Any Illegality By Rejecting The Prayer Of The Accused And Nor Any Prejudice Has Been Caused To The Accused By His Impugned Order.
The Application Under Section 482 Has, Thus, Got No Force And It Is Hereby Rejected.

Go to Navigation