Lalu @ Vikas vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

Subodh Abhyankar, J

1 . This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 27.03.2024 passed in S.T. No.26/2022 arising out of Crime No.785/2022 under Sections 363, 366, 376(1), 376(3), 343 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.

In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing the aforesaid trial, in which the prosecution has already completed its evidence and the matter is fixed for defence witness and at that time, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling of four prosecution witnesses namely, father of the prosecutrix PW-1, PW-3 Dr. Monika Solanki, PW-4 Madhu Ajmani and PW-8 Hina Kanesh the Investigating Officer.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid application was required to be filed by the petitioner, as a vital piece of information could not be put to the prosecution witnesses namely, the interpolation in the scholar register regarding the year of birth of the prosecutrix and thus, it is submitted that the application ought to have been allowed.

Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out as the case is at the fag end and the order impugned is just and reasonable.

Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the documents filed on record, including the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., it is found that so far as the aforesaid application is concerned, the same is absolutely silent as to why the petitioner seeks to examine these witnesses and on perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the learned Judge has rejected the application holding that the petitioner cannot be allowed to fulfill the lacuna; in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner was required to file the appropriate application as to why he needs the aforesaid witnesses to be recalled. However, in the absence of the same, merely on the asking of the petitioner/accused for recalling of the witnesses, the application could not have been allowed and the same appears to have been rightly rejected by the learned Judge of the Trial Court.

In view of the same, no case for interference is made out and the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds before the Trial Court.