Shubhash Ramkrushna Ghogare vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6366 Bom

                                     1



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


          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 868 OF 2022


         Shubhash Ramkrushna Ghogare, aged
         52 years, Occ.: Agriculturist, R/o Takli
         Nandkhed,     Taluka    :   Balarpur     and
         District : Akola.

                                                        ... APPLICANT

                                 VERSUS
         State of Maharashtra,
         Through Police Station
         Officer, Police Station, Balarpur,
         District : Akola.

                                                 ... NON-APPLICANT
_____________________________________________________________
       Ms. Garima Jain, Advocate h/f Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for
       the applicant.
       Shri H.D. Dubey, A.P.P. for non-applicant/State.
______________________________________________________________


                         CORAM           :   VINAY JOSHI, J.

                         DATED.          :   06.07.2022.


ORAL JUDGMENT :

ADMIT. Considering the controversy involved in the

application, the criminal application is taken up for final disposal

by consent of both the parties.

2. The applicant has raised a challenge to the order dated

09.03.2022 passed by the Trial Court on Exhibit 25 by which the

applicant urged for recall of PW-3 (victim's mother), has been

rejected. It is argued that there is material contradiction in the

evidence of PW-3 which mistakenly has not been brought on

record. Learned Counsel for the applicant took me through the

statement of the witness (PW-3) recorded by the Police in terms of

Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. My attention has been invited to the part of statement,

which is reproduced as below :

"nqljs fno"kh ldkGhp eh eqyxh &&& fgl fopkjiql dsyh rsOgk eyk lq/nk frus ojhy izek.ksp ?kVuk lkaxhryh-"

4. It appears that the witness in her evidence has not

stated anything as to when she learnt about the incident.

5. Only for giving a fair chance to bring the said fact on

record, witness can be recalled to that extent only. In view of that,

petition stands allowed. The impugned order dated 09.03.2022

passed by the Trial Court in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2017 is

quashed and set aside. The Trial Court shall recall PW-3 and

permit the applicant to put the above part of statement only in

cross-examination.

6. The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Trupti

TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL

08.07.2022 11:22