w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Raj Kumar v/s State of Haryana & Others

    Crl. Rev. No. 3156 of 2011 (O&M)

    Decided On, 22 January 2013

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

    For the Petitioner: Vivek Khatri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana, R2 & R3, Sunil Saharan, Advocate.



Judgment Text

Oral

Vide order dated 17.11.2012, an application to summon Sanju as additional witness under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code has been dis

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

missed. Sanju was stated to be 8 years of age when her mother was allegedly killed. She alongwith her brother Vikram were allegedly present at the time of occurrence. Vikram has already appeared as a witness, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. No doubt, Sanju's statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code was not recorded. A request has been made for examining Sanju after 3 years of occurrence. Said Sanju had allegedly been staying with the complainant side so chances of her being under their influence cannot also be ruled out but in view of the fact that one of eye witnesses having turned hostile, it will be relevant and important for the trial Court to examine Sanju as a witness to enable the trial Court to determine the truth after her statement in the Court and cross examination by the accused-respondents. Since Sanju appears to be a child witness, it is expected that her statement would be recorded complying with Section 118 of the Evidence Act. The trial Court has got ample powers to examine any witness irrespective of the fact that his/her name appears in the list of witnesses , as per judgment of this Court Rajvinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2004(4) RCR (Criminal) 474.

This petition is allowed.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29.01.2013.

Petition allowed
OR

Already A Member?

Also