Faisal vs State of U.P.

R.K. Rastogi, J.—This is a revision against the order dated 28.7.2006 passed by then learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Fast Tract Court No. IV, Azamgarh in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2003, State of U.P. v. Mohinuddin and others, under sections 147, 148, 149, 325, 504, 506 & 307, I.P.C. police station Saraimeer district Azamgarh.

The facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the aforesaid sessions trial is pending against the accusedrevisionists and in that sessions trial statement of Sarafraz O.P. No. 2 was recorded as P.W.2. He was crossexamined, but thereafter one application (Paper No. 31Kha) was moved from the side of the accused in which it was prayed that permission should be granted to further cross examine the above witness on the following points:

Regarding F.I.R. Ex.Ka 1;

Regarding duration of injuries of Sarafraz, Ehtesham & Abulandshah;

Regarding criminal history of Sarafraz, injured persons and witnesses;

Regarding enmity of witnesses and injured persons and regarding motive.

This application was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on the ground that the accused had sufficient opportunity to cross examine the witness and so the application was devoid of any merit. Aggrieved with that order the accused filed this revision.

I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionists as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State.

It is to be seen that the accused have already cross examined the witness and sufficient opportunity to cross examine was availed by them. Now there is no question of providing them a fresh opportunity to cross examine the witness again. In case the accused are of the view that some important questions which were essential for just decision of the case could not be put to the witness, they should specify those questions and then make a prayer before the Trial Court for permission to put the above questions to the witness. The points raised in the application which are regarding F.I.R., duration of injuries, motive and enmity are very vague and if permission had been granted in the form it was sought in the application, that would have amounted to permit further cross examination on almost "all the points, which could not be permissible under the law. The learned Trial Court did not commit any illegality by rejecting the above application of the accused. The revision in this way has got no force and it is liable to be dismissed. However, the accused shall be at liberty to move a fresh application specifying the questions which they want to put to the witness and if any such application is moved and if it is found by the Trial Court that those questions had not been put to the witness and that they are necessary for the just decision of the case, he may pass suitable orders on that application for asking those questions.

Subject to the above observations, the revision is dismissed.

Revision Dismissed.