Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gopalsingh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29467) on 8 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:29467]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5184/2025
Gopalsingh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Paldi Panwara, Police Station Sursagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Gaur for
Mr. Chiranji Lal Mali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
08/07/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
"vr% ,dyihB vijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk vUrxZr /kkjk 482 n.M
ikzfdz;k lafgrk@ 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk fo:) vkns"k
fnukad 15-09-2023 fo}ku vij lS"ku U;k;k/kh"k la[;k 5] tks/kiqj
egkuxj izLrqr dj fuosnu gS fd izkFkhZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tkdj
vkns"k fnukad 15-09-2023 dks fujLr dj xokg ihMCY;w 1 dqEHkkjke ls
U;k; fgr esa ftjg djus dk ,d volj nsus dh d`ik djsA "
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned
trial Court while passing the impugned order dated 15.09.2023
failed to consider that right to cross examine the witness is a
fundamental aspect of a fair trial, protected by the statutory
provisions. He submitted that prayer to cross-examine
complainant- Kumbharam (PW.1) ought not to have been declined
by the learned trial Court. However, without any valid reason or
justification, the learned trial Court arbitrarily curtailed the right of
[2025:RJ-JD:29467] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5184/2025]
the accused to cross examine the complainant- Kumbharam
(PW.1). He thus prayed that the impugned order dated
15.09.2023 may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may
be given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his prayer
has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of "Manju Devi v. State of
Rajasthan and Anr." in Cr. Appeal No.688/2019 decided on
16.04.2019.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
5. From the perusal of the case file, this Court finds that the
criminal trial against the petitioner is pending since the year 2017.
The petitioner despite grant of ample opportunities did not cross-
examine the complainant- Kumbharam (PW.1). On 20.11.2019,
when the matter was posted by the learned trial Court for cross-
examination only and the counsel for the co-accused- Narendra
Singh cross-examined the complainant- Kumbharam (PW.1).
6. The petitioner after about three years, on 18.01.2023, filed
and application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the
witness for cross-examination. From the perusal of the impugned
order, this Court finds that no reason or justification for filing the
application after about four years from the date when
complainant- Kumbharam (PW.1) was cross-examined by the co-
accused- Narendra Singh has been furnished by the learned
counsel for petitioner.
7. In the opinion of this Court, right to cross-examination
complainant ought to have been exercised by the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:29467] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5184/2025]
promptly and without undue delay. True it is, that interest of
justice and fair trial demands that right to cross-examine should
not be closed abruptly without any reason but that would not
meant that the same can be used as a tactic to delay the trial.
Once a witness has been fully examined, the Court generally
should not recall or re-examine the witness unless exceptional
circumstances justifies it. Recalling a witness after four years
without valid reason would not only be improper but would also be
unjustified.
8. In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has not
committed any illegality in exercising its discretion in rejecting the
application dated 18.01.2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner
under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
9. Consequently, the instant criminal misc. petition is dismissed
being devoid of any merit.
10. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
26-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
