Laxmanpanthi vs Ramswaroop Shrivastava
2021 Latest Caselaw 3101 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3101 MP
Judgement Date : 8 July, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Laxmanpanthi vs Ramswaroop Shrivastava on 8 July, 2021

Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

                              1
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       Cr.R.1265/2021
      Laxmanpanthi v. Ramswaroop Shrivastava and Anr.

                  Through Video Conferencing.

Gwalior, Dated : 08-07-2021

      Shri A.K. Jaiwal Counsel for the applicant.

      Smt. Padam Shri Agarwal, Counsel for the State.

      This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397/401

of Cr.P.C against the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Second

Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions

Judge, Datia in Sessions Trial No. 75/2016 by which objection raised

by the applicant that the evidence of Ram Babu Gupta and Surendra

Singh Sengar should not be recorded as their statement under Section

202 of Cr.P.C were not recorded, has been rejected.

      Challenging, the order passed by the Court below, it is

submitted by the Counsel for the applicant that the applicant is

facing trial for offence under Sections 467, 468, 120-B of IPC.on the

complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 The trial Magistrate after

taking cognizance of the said complaint, issued summons against the

applicant and thereafter committed the case to the Sessions Court. It

is submitted that the statements of Ram Babu Gupta and Surendra

Singh Senghar were not recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C and

therefore trial Court should not have permitted the prosecution to

examine Rambabu Gupta and Surendra Singh Senghar. It is

submitted that the applicant would not be in a position to confront

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.1265/2021 Laxmanpanthi v. Ramswaroop Shrivastava and Anr.

these witnesses pointing out their contradictions and omissions and

Rambabu Gupta and Surendra Singh Senghar are also not the eye

witnesses. It is further submitted that if Rambabu Gupta and

Surendra Singh Senghar are examined, then it would be contrary to

the provisions of Section 321 of the Cr.P.C.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

The Counsel for the applicant could not point out any

provision of law which prohibits the trial Court from examining

witnesses whose statements were not recorded under Section 202 of

Cr.P.C. Further, it is a trite law that even a person whose statement

was also not recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., can

also be examined as a witness.

The Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment

passed in the the case of Sunil Mehta & Anr vs State Of Gujarat

& Anr reported in 2013 (9) SCC 209 and submitted that the cross-

examination of witnesses is valuable right of accused and the same

cannot be taken away. The Counsel for the applicant has relied upon

observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph 18 in the case

of Sunil (supra) which reads as under:-

"18.Thirdly, because the right of cross- examination granted to an accused under Sections 244 to 246 even before framing of the charges does not, in the least, cause any prejudice to the complainant or result in any failure of justice, while denial of such a right is

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.1265/2021 Laxmanpanthi v. Ramswaroop Shrivastava and Anr.

likely and indeed bound to prejudice the accused in his defence. The fact that after the Court has found a case justifying framing of charges against the accused, the accused has a right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses under Section 246(4) does not necessarily mean that such a right cannot be conceded to the accused before the charges are framed or that the Parliament intended to take away any such right at the pre-charge stage."

In the case of Sunil (supra) the Supreme Court has considered

the necessity of cross-examination of witnesses prior to framing of

charges.

This Court does not deal with the situation as the charges have

already been framed and the trial has commenced. Framing of

charges and adjudication on merits are two different aspects. Under

these circumstances this Court is of the considered opinion that if the

trial Court rejected the objection filed by the applicant against the

examination of witnesses Rambabu Gupta and Surendra Singh

Senghar, then it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error has been

committed by the trial Court.