Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25456) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25456]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4254/2025
Balram S/o Shri Nand Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o H.n. 106,
Ward No. 45 New Ward 60 Near Karni Mata Temple, Sureshiya,
Hanumangarh Junction, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria
Mr. Omprakash
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bhati, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
23/05/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
this misc. petition may kindly be allowed:-
i) The impugned order dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned
Additional Session Judge, Sangaria, district Hanumangarh in
criminal case no. 43/2024 may kindly be quashed and set
aside.
(ii) The application filed by the complainant party along with
public prosecutor may kindly be allowed as prayed.
(iii) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court
deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the
petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the
present case, an application under Section 273 Cr.P.C. filed before
this Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh by learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that the
statements of PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10 were not recorded by
[2025:RJ-JD:25456] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4254/2025]
securing presence of the accused in Court and, therefore, the
statements of aforementioned witnesses be recorded afresh in the
presence of accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that
since the provisions contained under Section 273 Cr.P.C. are
mandatory in nature, the application filed by the learned Public
Prosecutor ought not to have been rejected by the learned trial
Court. He contended that in order to secure ends of justice and in
exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 528 BNSS,
this Court may direct learned trial Court to conduct the
proceedings afresh after recording the statements of PW.8, PW.9
and PW.10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
the following judgments:-
(1.) "Atma Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan" in Criminal
Appeal Nos. 656-657 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)
Nos.809-810 of 2019) decided on 11.04.2019.
(2.) "State v. Aatma Ram and Ors." in D.B. Criminal Death
Reference No.2 of 2017 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.33 of
2018 decided on 13.12.2018.
(3.) "Vinod v. State of Rajasthan Thro' P.P. & Anr." in S.B.
Criminal Appeal No.1267 of 2022 decided on 03.11.2022.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the
impugned order dated 15.05.2025 passed by learned trial Court.
4. Upon perusal of the case file, this Court finds that at the time
when the statements of PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10 were recorded
before the competent criminal Court in absence of the accused
person, neither the Public Prosecutor nor the counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant raised any objection in that regard.
[2025:RJ-JD:25456] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4254/2025]
PW.8 and PW.9 during the Court statements have not supported
the prosecution story and have turned hostile. The statements of
PW.8, PW.9 and PW.10 were recorded in the year 2022 and an
application under Section 273 Cr.P.C. was filed before the leaned
trial Court after commencing of final arguments in the trial.
5. It is pertinent to note here that in the application filed under
Section 273 Cr.P.C., no reason what so ever for delay in filing the
same after three years of the recording of the statements of PW.8,
PW.9 and PW.10 before the learned trial Court has been stated.
The application for recording of the statements of PW.8, PW.9 and
PW.10 before the learned trial Court in the presence of accused
was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, the order
dated 15.05.2025 passed thereupon, has not been challenged by
the State before this Court.
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial
Court committed no error in passing the order dated 15.05.2025
in an application seeking recording of the statements of PW.8,
PW.9 and PW.10 in the presence of the accused person filed before
it after commencement of the final arguments in the matter as the
right to fair and speedy trial accrued to the accused cannot be
violated at the instance of the litigants, who were not vigilant and
dormant about their rights so also, no explanation whatsoever has
been furnished with regard to inordinate delay in filing of the said
application under Section 273 Cr.P.C.
7. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in the
present criminal misc. petition and the same is therefore
dismissed.
[2025:RJ-JD:25456] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4254/2025]
8. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
80-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
