State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... vs Abdul Salam Khan Abdul Karim Khan & ...
2019 Latest Caselaw 63 Bom

                                                                   REVN.62.19
                                     1


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                 ...

                       CRIMINAL REVISION NO.62/2019

        State of Maharashtra
        through Police Station Officer
        Police Station, Akot File, Akola.         ..        APPELLANT

                versus

1)      Abdul Salam Khan Abdul Karim Khan
        Aged about 33 years, occu: Labour
        R/o Purpidit Quarter, Akot File, Akola.

2)      Sheikh Iliyas Sheikh Chhtu
        Aged 43 years, occuL Labour
        R/o Behind Macchi Masjid
        Pinjari Galli,Akola.

3)      Vijendra Molchand Kuril
        Aged 35 years, occu :Property Broker
        R/o Machipura, Akot File, Akola.

4)      Sheikh Kayyaum Sheikh Karim
        Aged 28 years, occu: Labour
        R/o Abdulla Colony, Akola

5)      Mohamman Rijwan Mohd.Salim
        aged about 26 years, occu :Labour
        R/o Near Alfata Masjid, Firdos Colony
        Akola.

6)      Sheikh Mehmud Sheikh Mehboob
        Aged years occu: Nil
        R/o Purpidit Quarter, Akot File,Akola... RESPONDENTS




     ::: Uploaded on - 09/09/2019               ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2020 19:05:39 :::
                                                                                         REVN.62.19
                                                   2


..........................................................................................................
         Mr. Amit Chutke, Adv. for appellant-State
         Mr. A.S. Londhe, Adv. for respondents 1 to 5
.......................................................................................................


                                            CORAM: MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.

DATED: 26th August, 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of the respective

parties.

2. The appellant-State has preferred the instant Revision

against the judgment and order dated 4.1.2019 passed by learned

Special Judge (MCOCA) & Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati

rejecting the request of learned Special APP, who is conducting the

Sessions Trial in Special Case No. 01/2016, to ask the question, as

to where was he at the time when deceased-Prakashsingh Bisen was

narrating the incident of his assault at the hands of the accused

persons".

3. Shri Amit Chutke, learned APP has invited my attention

to paragraph no.4 of the evidence of PW3-Mujaffar Khan, recorded

by learned Special Judge MCOCA. On a perusal of said paragraph

REVN.62.19

4, it is noticed that PW3-Muzaffarkhan has stated that he took

Prakashsingh in his car to Singhi Hospital. He then made a phone

call to son and brother of Prakashsingh. Thereafter they both came

to the hospital. Prakashsingh (deceased) told his brother and son

that he was dashed by a car by accused Salam and Illiyas. At that

time, Salam was driving the car. Further question was asked by

learned APP as to "where were you at that time?" The said

objection was raised by the learned defence counsel on the ground

that it was a leading question. Learned APP further contended that

PW3 has in terms stated that he himself had admitted Prakashsingh

in the hospital and on his phone, called the son and brother of

Prakashsingh, who visited the said hospital. Thereafter

Prakashsingh told his brother and son that he was dashed by a car

by the accused persons. In these circumstances, the said question

cannot be termed as a leading question. Learned APP further

relied upon the provisions under Section 141 of the Evidence Act.

4. Shri A.S. Londhe, learned Advocate for the respondents

1 to 5 contended that it was a leading question, however, he failed

REVN.62.19

to explain as to in what manner it can be termed as a leading

question.

5. Section 141 of Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that

any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it

wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question.

6. In the instant case, the evidence of PW3 depicts that

he himself admitted Prakashsingh in the Singhi Hospital and made

a phone call to the son and brother of Prakashsingh informing

about the incident and on his call, they both attended the hospital.

The evidence makes it clear that at that time Prakashsingh informed

his brother and son that he was dashed by a car by Salam and

Illiyas and at that time, Salam was driving the car. In view of the

specific answer given by PW3, the question asked to him as to

where was he at the point of time cannot be a leading question.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances, the impugned

order treating the said question as leading question, is set aside.

REVN.62.19

The learned Judge is at liberty to proceed with the case. The order

dated 4th January, 2019, passed by learned Special Judge, MCOCA

& Addl. Session Judge, Amravati, is set aside. Revision is hereby

allowed.

JUDGE

sahare