Maan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

The petitioner has sought directions that the evidence of injured witness in Sessions Trial No.176 of 2021, State vs. Govind Singh Rautela and others, under Sections 307, 392, 120-B, 34, 411 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, pending in the court of 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, “the case”) be recorded and directions be issued that unnecessary adjournments may not be given in the case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The case is based on an FIR lodged on 01.07.2021, according to which, the son of the informant Mukesh alias Mukku Takuli was injured in a firearm injury by the accused of the case. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted and the trial is underway.

It is the case of the petitioner that a bullet is still stuck in the skull of the injured. He has to undergo medical procedures. In paragraph no.11 of the affidavit in support of the petition, it is stated that the chances of success of operation are very less and it may lead to the death of the victim. Petitioner, who is father of the victim seeks directions that the evidence of his son, who is injured in the case be recorded and for that purpose adjournment may not be allowed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of framing of charge, the defence had taken 2 or 3 adjournments in order to delay the trial. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner itself that though examination-in-chief of the victim has already been recorded and today is date fixed for his cross-examination, but due to health condition he may not be in a condition to appear today before the court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that directions be issued that as soon as the injured appears before the court, his evidence may be recorded on day-to-day basis, until it is concluded.

Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents would submit that the accused would not take any adjournment in so far as cross-examination of the injured witness is concerned and thereafter the trial may go as usual.

Learned State counsel would submit that the defence has been seeking adjournments in the matter unnecessarily, therefore, directions need to be issued.

Generally this Court should restrain from issuing directions for expeditious disposal of a case. It is in the domain and court management of each court to manage its docket on the basis of priority of the cases. But, there may be exceptional circumstances which may compel this Court to remind the court concerned that day today hearing in Session cases is a general norm. Adjournment of the proceeding is an exception. Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”) makes provision in this regard. Sub-Section (1) of it is as hereunder:-

“309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.—(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: …………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………

In the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab, (2015)3 SCC 220, the Hon’ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of granting adjournment on the drop of a hat. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) reminded the Courts of their duties and in para 57.5 observed as hereunder:-

“57.5. The duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safeguarded. It is distressing to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment, continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the same among the learned trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed to be lonely; a destitute.”

In the instance case, what is being submitted is that the victim has a bullet still stuck in his head which was fired at him in the incident. He fears to his life. The victim wants that his evidence may be recorded. The law is well settled that even after examination of a witness, under certain circumstances the witness may be recalled by the court on its own or at the request of the parties.

Initially, the petitioner wanted that the examination of his son i.e. victim in the case may be recorded without any delay. Unfortunately, it is stated that due to his health condition the victim could not appear today before the court. In a procedure, which was conducted subsequently, the bullet has gone deeper into the skull, which prevented the victim to appear in the court. These circumstances mandates this Court to issue directions that the evidence of the victim shall be recorded and thereafter, the trial shall continue till its conclusion. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be allowed.

The petition is allowed.

The court below shall record the statement of the victim on the next date when he appears before the court. Thereafter, the trial shall continue on day-to-day basis until the trial is over. No adjournment whatsoever ground shall be considered by the court.