Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O. Ramaji Uikey vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 3 May, 2017
Bench: P.N. Deshmukh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.37 OF 2016.
APPLICANT: Sunil Ramaji Uikey,
aged about 42 years, Occu: Labour,
R/o Adiwasi Nagr, Police Line Takli,
Nagpur.
: VERSUS :
RESPONDENT : The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S.O., Gittikhadan, Nagpur.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.A.S.Band, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.T.A.Mirza, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM: P.N.DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 3rd MAY, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel of
both the parties.
2. This Criminal Revision Application takes exception to
the impugned order dated 28th February, 2017 passed below
Exh.56, thereby application filed by applicant/accused to recall
victim, the prosecutrix came to be rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that
after examining prosecutrix, applicant/accused is served with the
statement of victim recorded by Member of Child Welfare
Committee (CWC) and has contended that in her statement
recorded she has named the accused as Sunil Ramaji Gedam and
thus, has applied for recalling of witness i.e. prosecutrix.
4. Prosecution has opposed the application by filing
reply. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has rightly urged
that if name of accused mentioned in the statement recorded by
Child Welfare Committee is something else, no purpose would be
served by recalling prosecutrix but applicant has to adopt proper
recourse available under law to bring on record contents of said
statement with regards to name of accused stated therein by the
prosecutrix and therefore, submitted that present revision is thus
devoid of merit.
5. From the impugned order it is found that application
was filed to recall victim, the prosecutrix for confronting her with
her statement recorded by Member of Child Welfare Committee,
contending that copy of statement was not supplied to accused
before recording of evidence of prosecutrix, as at that time said
statement was in sealed envelope. From the copy of evidence of
prosecutrix it is found that her examination-in-chief was recorded
on 4th August, 2016, however, copy of her statement recorded by
Member of Child Welfare Committee is alleged to be supplied to
accused on 19th December, 2016. It is noted that on 4th August,
2016 since Advocate for applicant was not present, prosecutrix
was cross-examined on 23rd September, 2016 and concluded on
the same day. It is, therefore, apparent that when evidence of
prosecutrix was recorded and she was cross-examined, said
document was not supplied to applicant. However, as rightly
contended by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, much purpose
would not serve even if prosecutrix is allowed to be recalled in
the absence of evidence of Member of the Child Welfare
Committee, whosoever has recorded statement of prosecutrix on
28th October, 2014.
6. In that view of the matter, it is found that evidence of
Member of Child Welfare Committee, Nagpur is necessary to
bring required evidence on record to reach just conclusion of the
trial. However, from the affidavit-in-reply filed by State it is
noted that Member who has recorded said statement has
undergone ill-health and since suffering from paralysis is bed
ridden. In the circumstances, following order is passed.
(i) Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.
(ii) Learned Trial Court shall issue summons in the
name of Member of Child Welfare Committee, who has recorded
statement of prosecutrix, Shena Rajkumar Chavhan on 28th
October, 2014 and proceed further according to law.
(iii) Revision application stands disposed of in above
terms.
JUDGE.
chute
