Yatindra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The applicant/accused has filed the present criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 13.05.2019, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratlam whereby an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C has been rejected.

That the criminal under Crime No.29 of 2012 has been registered against the applicant for offence under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is pending before the Sessions Court, Ratlam as Sessions Trial No.184/2012. On a complaint made by the present applicant a criminal case has also been registered against the complaint under the Crime No.29/2012 under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 of IPC and 3, 25, 27 of the Arms Act. In the said case police investigation has been completed challan has been filed and trial is pending before the same sessions Court as Sessions Trial No.183/12.

In the S.T.No.184/2012, the prosecution has examined P.S. Tomar as PW19 who got exhibited the certain documents filed alongwith the charge-sheet. According to the applicant, final report/challan of Crime No.30/2012 is also filed alongwith the challan of Crime No.29/2012 but by mistake the same has not been marked as an exhibit, therefore, the applicant filed an application under Section 311 for summoning PW19 in the Court again for marking the FR of Crime No.30/2012 as exhibit. By impugned order dated 13.05.2019, learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the application, hence, present revision before this Court.

Shri V.K. Jain, learned senior counsel submits that the record of case registered under Crime No.30/2012 is already on record and during the cross-examination of PW-19 the exhibit could not be marked, therefore, the presence of PW19 in the witness box is necessary for the limited purpose. Learned Court has wrongly rejected the application. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgement passed by the apex Court in case of Manan Sk. Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2950 & Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar & Others, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3081.

In case of Manan Sk. (Supra) the application for recalling of PW15 was moved by prosecution and the trial Court has rejected the same, therefore, the Apex Court has permitted to prosecution to recall his witness. Likewise, in case of Rajaram Prasad Yadav (supra) the respondent filed an application under Section 311 for his own re-examination and the public prosecution also filed an application under Section 311 and the trial Court has rejected both the applications. Hence, the Apex court has allowed both the application.

Under Section 311 the Court may at any stage of any enquiry/trial or other proceedings summon any person as witness for re-examination purpose if his evidence appears to be essential to just the decision of the case.

In the present case, both the Sessions trials are pending before the same Court. The photocopies of the proceedings of the Crime Case No.30/2012 has been filed in S.T.No.184/2012 pending against the applicant which can not be marked as an exhibit. It is prerogative of the prosecution to rely on the documents which are necessary for proving the case against the accused. He cannot insist for re-examination of the prosecution witnesses for proving the documents of his favour. Both the trials have been fixed for final arguments on 21.06.2019. The plaintiff has already cross-examined the PW14, therefore, the trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion.

Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Petition is accordingly dismissed.