Raj Kumar vs State of Haryana and Others

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—Vide order dated 17.11.2012, an application to summon Sanju as additional witness u/s 311 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed. 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 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. 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.