Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Bedi vs State on 11 July, 2016
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : JULY 11, 2016
+ CRL.M.C.1370/2016
VIJAY KUMAR BEDI
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.S.S.Ahluwalia with Mr.Jitender
Mehta, Advocates.
versus
STATE
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. As per Notification No.1078/G-4/Genl./DHC dated 06.07.2016,
case is taken up for orders today.
2. Present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred
by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated
18.02.2016 by which application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.filed to recall
PW-1 prosecutrix-X (assumed name) and PW-2 (Vipin Panth), her husband
was dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. The petitioner is facing proceedings under Section 376
IPC in Case FIR No.731/2015 registered at Police Station Nazafagarh. The
prosecutrix has leveled allegations of commission of rape upon her. PW-1
(X) and PW-2 (Bipin Pant) were examined at length on 25.01.2016. Both
were cross-examined minutely on every aspect. It is informed that the
prosecution has already completed its evidence.
4. The petitioner intends to recall PW 1 to confront her with a
document (at page-51), original of which was not available with him at the
time of her examination. I have gone through the contents of the said
document. It does not indicate on which specific date this 'note' was
written; for whom it was written; and in what context it was executed. It is
also not clear as to when this letter/note was delivered and if so by what
specific mode. The prosecutrix in her cross-examination has admitted her
acquaintance with the petitioner. She even admitted that she had gone with
him to Lucknow and he had brought her to Delhi from there on 01.04.2015.
Apparently, this letter per se is of no relevance to disprove the allegations of
rape.
5. The petitioner intends to confront PW-2 (Bipin Pant) with
certain papers regarding divorce petition filed by him against her wife PW-2
(X). In the cross-examination of PW-2 specific questions were put about the
divorce petition filed by him against his wife on 4.5.2015. He even gave the
names of the counsel representing him in the said petition. Moreover, the
petitioner can produce the certified copies of these public documents in
defence.
6. The petitioner further intends to confront PW-1 regarding call
details of the mobile to show his location on 19.02.2015 at a particular place.
Record reveals that the petitioner has taken a specific defence that on
19.02.2015, he had visited the office of Commissioner of Customs, New
Custom House, General, New Delhi and had supplied paper and CD combo
shredder machine vide Challan No.103 and 104. He further alleged that on
that day, he had also visited the office of Commissioner of Customs. Air
Cargo Export, New Custom House, New Delhi and had received the original
order from the Administrative Officer (Admin)-Ms.Smiti Bhatnagar. It is
for the accused to prove the plea of 'alibi'.
7. Since PWs 1 and 2 have already been cross-examined at length
way back on 25.01.2016, they being resident of Jaipur (Rajasthan) cannot be
recalled for the reasons mentioned in the application. It appears that the
petitioner intends to delay the trial by re-calling these witnesses.
8. I find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Copy
of the order be sent to the court concerned.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JULY 11, 2016
sa
