Uttarakhand High Court
Maan Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 23 February, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 14 of 2022
Maan Singh ........... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ........ Respondents
Present : Mr. Shailabh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent
no.1.
Mr. Girish Chandra Lakhchaura, Advocate for the private
respondents.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has sought directions that the
evidence of injured witness in Sessions Trial No.176 of
2021, State vs. Govind Singh Rautela and others, under
Sections 307, 392, 120-B, 34, 411 IPC and Section 3/25
of the Arms Act, 1959, pending in the court of 2nd
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, "the case") be
recorded and directions be issued that unnecessary
adjournments may not be given in the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. The case is based on an FIR lodged on
01.07.2021, according to which, the son of the informant
Mukesh alias Mukku Takuli was injured in a firearm
injury by the accused of the case. After investigation,
charge-sheet has been submitted and the trial is
underway.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that a bullet is
still stuck in the skull of the injured. He has to undergo
medical procedures. In paragraph no.11 of the affidavit in
support of the petition, it is stated that the chances of
success of operation are very less and it may lead to the
death of the victim. Petitioner, who is father of the victim
seeks directions that the evidence of his son, who is
injured in the case be recorded and for that purpose
adjournment may not be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that at the time of framing of charge, the defence
had taken 2 or 3 adjournments in order to delay the trial.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner itself that
though examination-in-chief of the victim has already
been recorded and today is date fixed for his cross-
examination, but due to health condition he may not be
in a condition to appear today before the court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that directions be issued that as soon as the
injured appears before the court, his evidence may be
recorded on day-to-day basis, until it is concluded.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondents would submit that the accused would not
take any adjournment in so far as cross-examination of
the injured witness is concerned and thereafter the trial
may go as usual.
8. Learned State counsel would submit that the
defence has been seeking adjournments in the matter
unnecessarily, therefore, directions need to be issued.
9. Generally this Court should restrain from
issuing directions for expeditious disposal of a case. It is
in the domain and court management of each court to
manage its docket on the basis of priority of the cases.
But, there may be exceptional circumstances which may
compel this Court to remind the court concerned that day
today hearing in Session cases is a general norm.
Adjournment of the proceeding is an exception. Section
309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
"the Code") makes provision in this regard. Sub-Section
(1) of it is as hereunder:-
"309. Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.--
(1) In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be
continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in
attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds
the adjournment of the same beyond the following day
to be necessary for reasons to be recorded: .................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
10. In the case of Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab,
(2015)3 SCC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated
the practice of granting adjournment on the drop of a hat.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar
(supra) reminded the Courts of their duties and in para
57.5 observed as hereunder:-
"57.5. The duty of the court is to see that not only the
interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the
societal and collective interest is safeguarded. It is distressing
to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the
habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment, continues.
How long shall we say, "Awake! Arise!". There is a constant
discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies
of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all
the High Courts for circulating the same among the learned
trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating
to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-
examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of
the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an
apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer
chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed to
be lonely; a destitute."
11. In the instance case, what is being submitted is
that the victim has a bullet still stuck in his head which
was fired at him in the incident. He fears to his life. The
victim wants that his evidence may be recorded. The law
is well settled that even after examination of a witness,
under certain circumstances the witness may be recalled
by the court on its own or at the request of the parties.
12. Initially, the petitioner wanted that the
examination of his son i.e. victim in the case may be
recorded without any delay. Unfortunately, it is stated
that due to his health condition the victim could not
appear today before the court. In a procedure, which was
conducted subsequently, the bullet has gone deeper into
the skull, which prevented the victim to appear in the
court. These circumstances mandates this Court to issue
directions that the evidence of the victim shall be
recorded and thereafter, the trial shall continue till its
conclusion. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be
allowed.
13. The petition is allowed.
14. The court below shall record the statement of
the victim on the next date when he appears before the
court. Thereafter, the trial shall continue on day-to-day
basis until the trial is over. No adjournment whatsoever
ground shall be considered by the court.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
23.02.2022
Sanjay
