Gopal Ganpat Karankar vs State Of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9283 Bom

                                     1



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

           CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 747 OF 2022
          Gopal Ganpat Karankar, age - 41 years,
          Occ : Service, R/o Ram nagar,
          Barshitakli, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.
                                                       ... APPLICANT

                                 VERSUS
          The State of Maharashtra, through
          Police Station Officer, Police Station,
          Barshitakli, District : Akola.

                                                    ... NON-APPLICANT

_____________________________________________________________
       Ms. Garima Jain, Advocate h/f Shri S.V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for
       the applicant.
       Shri S.M. Ukey, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
______________________________________________________________

                         CORAM           :   VINAY JOSHI, J.

                         DATED.          :   15.09.2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard. ADMIT. By consent of both the learned Counsel

appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

2. The applicant who is accused in the Sessions Case No.223

of 2016 has challenged the order dated 09.06.2022 by which the Trial

Court has declined to recall PW1 - father of the Victim, PW2 - the

victim and PW6 - the Investigating Officer.

3. It is the applicant's contentions that the victim as well as

her father has not stated the date of birth in their police statement,

however, they have made said improvement during the course of

evidence. The applicant wanted to bring the said omission on the

record to substantiate his stand. It reveals that though the victim has

stated her date of birth in her statement recorded by the Magistrate in

terms of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however the

fact remains that in her initial report, she did not disclose her date of

birth.

4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that

the recall is strictly to the extent of bringing the omission in respect of

date of birth on record and not for any other purpose. It is a matter of

record, that the victim as well as her father did not state date of birth

and thus, in the interest of justice, opportunity can be given to the

applicant to that extent, since the offence if prove, may attract the

punishment which may extent to five years of imprisonment. Of-course,

if the omissions are proved through the evidence PW1 and PW2, then it

is not necessary to recall the Investigating Officer for doing further

exercise.

5. In view of that the application is allowed. The impugned

order dated 09.06.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside.

6. The applicant's urged for recalling PW1 - father of the

victim, PW2- the victim and PW6 - the Investigating Officer, is allowed

restricted only to the extent of proving the omission regarding date of

birth to the victim. It is hereby made clear that the Trial Court shall not

permit to ask any other questions even relating to date of birth except

bringing omission on record.

7. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

(VINAY JOSHI, J.)

Trupti

TRUPTI SANTOSHJI AGRAWAL

16.09.2022 16:18