CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Shrikrishna vs State of M.P.

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 2 July 2014 · Citation: (2014) 07 MP CK 0252

HON’BLE JUDGES
D.K. Paliwal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 397, 401 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302, 307
RESULT
Disposed Off
CASE NUMBER
Cr. R. No. 485/2014
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 380 words

D.K. Paliwal, J.—With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2.

This revision petition has been preferred u/s 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by XI Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 18/2014, whereby the right of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses have been closed.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are facing trial u/s 302 and 307 of IPC. During trial, learned Trial Court has closed the right of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses Bhupendra Singh (PW. 3) and Rajveer Singh (PW. 4). It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners that petitioners'' counsel was not well hence, could not cross-examine the witnesses. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in closing the right of cross-examination. Being aggrieved this revision petition has been filed by the petitioners.

4.

I have perused the certified copies of the order-sheets of the Sessions Trial No. 18/2014. It appears that the prosecution witnesses Bhupendra Singh (PW. 3) and Rajveer Singh (PW. 4) were present. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has prayed that he is not feeling well, hence, sought adjournment for cross-examination, which has been rejected by the learned Trial Court.

5.

Looking to the fact that the petitioners are facing charges of serious offence like murder, the petitioners should have been granted fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses because their counsel was not feeling well. The learned Trial Court has committed an error in disallowing the claim, hence consequential order passed by the learned Trial Court closing the right of cross-examination of the petitioners from the prosecution witnesses Bhupendra Singh (PW. 3) and Rajveer Singh (PW. 4) are set aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to call the prosecution witnesses and provide an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses Bhupendra Singh (PW. 3) and Rajveer Singh (PW. 4). It is made clear that if the witnesses are present and cross-examination is not conducted on behalf of the petitioners, then they shall not get get any further opportunity to cross-examine them.

6.

With the aforesaid, this revision petition is disposed of.

7.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.