Delhi High Court
Rishi Raj vs State Of Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 July, 2012
Author: Manmohan
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 73/2012 & CRL.M.A. 1977/2012
RISHI RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Advocate with
Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Advocate.
versus
STATE OF GOVT OF
NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, APP for State.
Mr. Anirudh Yadav, Advocate for
respondent No.2
% Date of Decision : 25th July, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)
1. Present criminal revision petition has been filed under Sections
397/401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 17th January, 2012 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi,
whereby the respondent's counsel was permitted to cross-examine an
eyewitness i.e. PW1 Satpal once more subject to payment of costs of
` 10,000/-.
2. The admitted position is that PW1 Satpal was examined on 22nd
November, 2010 and thereafter on 24th November, 2010, 26th
November, 2010 and lastly on 18th February, 2011.
3. It is pertinent to mention that on 13th January, 2011, the then
Additional Sessions Judge trying the present case had made it clear
that as PW1 Satpal's life was under threat, the defence counsel would
be permitted to further cross-examine the said witness only on one
date and no other opportunity would be granted to him.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order
is not only contrary to the earlier order dated 13th January, 2011, but
has been passed as if the subsequent Additional Sessions Judge was
sitting in appeal over the earlier order.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent states that as
the eyewitness PW1 Satpal had not been effectively cross-examined,
the trial Court committed no error in granting an opportunity to the
defence counsel to further cross-examine the PW1 Satpal and that too
on payment of costs.
6. Having heard the parties at length, this Court is of the opinion
that respondent No.2-accused had been given sufficient opportunity to
cross-examine the eyewitness PW1 Satpal. In fact, a perusal of the
paper book reveals that PW1 Satpal was extensively cross-examined
by all the accused including the respondent No.2.
7. The Supreme Court in Nisar Khan @ Guddu and Others vs.
State of Uttaranchal (2006) 9 SCC 386 has held, "Naturally, by the
time the eyewitnesses were recalled, they were won over either by
money, by muscle power, by threats or intimidation. We are of the
view that no reasonable person properly instructed in law would
allow an application filed by the accused to recall the eyewitnesses
after a lapse of more than one year that too after the witnesses were
examined, cross--examined and discharged."(emphasis supplied).
8. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid mandate of law is
clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.
9. Moreover, in view of the order dated 13th January, 2011, the
Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in allowing another
opportunity to respondent No.2 to cross-examine PW1 Satpal.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 17th January, 2012 is set aside and
the trial Court is directed to proceed ahead with the matter.
11. The costs of ` 10,000/- deposited by the respondent shall be
refunded to the learned counsel for respondent against a receipt. With
the aforesaid observations, present petition and pending application
stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
JULY 25, 2012
js
