Satish vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.

Heard Mr. A.S. Manohar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms Dhamadhkari, learned Counsel (appointed) for respondent no.2 and Mrs. Kolhe, learned APP for respondent no.1/State.

The present petition challenges the order dated 25-05-2026 passed by the learned Trial Court below Exhibit-159 in Special Case No. 81/2023, whereby the application filed by the prosecution seeking permission to re-examine Shahaji (PW-6) and to examine two additional witnesses, namely, the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kurha, Tq. Motala, District Buldhana and Dr. N. V. Tadas, the then Civil Surgeon, Buldhana, as stated in the said application, came to be allowed. Thereafter, the prosecution moved another application below Exhibit-164 seeking correction of certain mistakes in the order dated 25-05-2026 and further seeking permission to re-examine Shahaji (PW-6) with regard to the FSL reports pertaining to the mobile phones of the accused and the victim, as well as the hard copy/CD thereof. The learned Trial Court, by a further order dated 16-06-2026 passed below Exhibit-164, allowed the said application. The order dated 16-06-2026 passed below Exhibit-164 is also the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

Mr. Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that both the orders passed by the learned Trial Court, i.e. the learned Special Judge, Buldhana, have been passed without due application of mind to the prayers made by the prosecution in the respective applications. He submits that, in fact, the prayers made by the prosecution are misconceived, particularly inasmuch as allowing the same is likely to cause serious prejudice to the rights of the accused. He further submits that Exhibits-141 to 143, which have been referred to in the order dated 25-05-2026 as FSL reports in fact are the C.A. reports, which had already been referred to during the evidence of Shahaji (PW-6) and had also been duly exhibited in his evidence. Thus, the reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court while allowing Exhibit-159, namely, Exhibits-141 to 143 had not been put to PW-6, is itself fallacious and the same needs to be corrected by this Court. He further submits that the order passed below Exhibit-164, whereby the learned Trial Court has again permitted the recall of PW-6 for the purpose of proving the FSL reports relating to the mobile phones of the accused and the victim, has also been passed without proper application of mind. According to the learned Counsel, there was no justification for permitting the prosecution to recall PW-6 for the said purpose.

The learned Trial Court has fairly taken into consideration the submission of the accused that it had no jurisdiction to review its earlier order dated 25-05-2026. The application at Exhibit-164, however, reflects non-application of mind, not only on the part of the learned Trial Court but also on the part of the prosecution conducting the trial. The petitioner/accused would be seriously prejudiced if such an application is permitted at this belated stage of the trial, particularly when ten witnesses have already been examined and Shahaji (PW-6) has also made certain admissions which are favourable to the accused. Learned Counsel, therefore, submits that both the orders passed by the learned Trial Court below Exhibits-159 and 164 warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside.

As against this, Mrs. Kolhe, learned APP and Ms. Dharmadhikari, learned appointed Counsel for respondent no.2, strongly oppose the petition. They submit that the impugned orders have been passed after the learned Trial Court recorded its satisfaction that the recall of the witnesses and the examination of the additional witnesses were necessary for proper adjudication of the case on its merits. It is submitted that the prosecution seeks to examine two additional witnesses, as the allegations in the case pertain to the disability of the victim, and therefore, the evidence of the said witnesses was considered necessary for the purpose of proving the disability of the victim and the age of the victim. As regards the recall of Shahaji (PW-6), learned APP submits that the FSL reports of mobile phones were not available with the prosecution at the time of filing of the charge-sheet and, therefore, the same could not be produced at the time of filing of charge-sheet. However, after the filing of the charge-sheet, the said FSL reports were received. It was, therefore, considered necessary to bring the said reports on record by putting the same to Shahaji (PW-6). Learned APP, therefore, submits that the application below Exhibit-159 was rightly moved by the prosecution after considering the necessity of the aforesaid documents and witnesses. Upon being satisfied about the necessity of recalling the witness and examining the additional witnesses, the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order granting permission to the prosecution. However, the order dated 25-05-2026 refers only to the necessity of recalling Shahaji (PW-6) for the purpose of proving Exhibits-141 to 143. The case of the prosecution, was that Shahaji (PW-6) was required to be re-examined also for the purpose of proving the fresh FSL reports, which were not available with the prosecution at the time of filing of the charge-sheet. The inadvertent error committed by the learned Trial Court in the order dated 25-05-2026 was, therefore, sought to be corrected by the prosecution by filing a separate and fresh application below Exhibit-164. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Trial Court in its subsequent order dated 16-06-2026, after recording the objections raised by the present petitioner/accused. It is submitted that the impugned orders have been passed by the learned Trial Court after due application of mind to the allegations and the requirements of the prosecution at the stage of trial. In the circumstances, the impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. The orders are just, proper and, therefore, deserve to be maintained.

I have gone through the order dated 16-06-2026 passed below Exhibit-164 as well as the order dated 25-05-2026 passed below Exhibits-159 by the learned Trial Court. I have also perused the applications at Exhibits-164 and 159 filed by the prosecution. A perusal of the application at Exhibit-159 itself would show that the prosecution had sought permission to recall Shahaji (PW-6) for the purpose of exhibiting the documents at Exhibits-141 to 143, which were already exhibited, as well as the FSL reports and the hard copy/CD pertaining to the mobile phones of the accused and the victim, received from the Forensic Laboratory, Amravati.

However, a perusal of the order dated 25-05-2026 would show that the said FSL reports have been erroneously referred to as Exhibits-141 to 143. Exhibits-141 to 143 are, in fact, the C.A. reports and not the FSL reports. The said C.A. reports had already been put to the Investigating Officer, Shahaji (PW-6) by the prosecution during his examination-in-chief and were duly brought on record. Thus, it appears that the order dated 25-05-2026 has been passed without due application of mind to the fact that Exhibits-141 to 143 had already been brought on record by putting the same to the Investigating Officer, Shahaji (PW-6). Insofar as the permission granted to examine the additional witnesses, namely, the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Kurha, Tq. Motala, District Buldhana, for the purpose of proving the birth certificate, as well as the Doctor and other witnesses sought to be examined for proving the disability certificate, is concerned, the learned Trial Court has passed the order upon recording its satisfaction that the said witnesses are necessary for proper adjudication of the trial. This Court also finds it necessary for proper adjudication of the trial to call and examine the aforesaid two witnesses. Hence, the impugned order dated 25-05-2026, insofar as it permits the prosecution to examine the aforesaid witnesses, deserves to be maintained.

However, insofar as the impugned order dated 25-05-2026 permits the prosecution to recall Shahaji (PW-6) for the purpose of proving the FSL reports pertaining to the mobile phones of the accused and the victim, received from the FSL, Amravati, the same appears to have been passed by the learned Trial Court without proper application of mind to the facts of the case and the objections raised by the petitioner. The petitioner had specifically contended that the said material was already in possession of the prosecution prior to the examination of Shahaji (PW-6) and that permitting his recall at this stage would cause serious prejudice to the accused. As noticed earlier, there is non-application of mind on the part of the learned Trial Court in permitting the recall of PW-6 by referring to Exhibits-141 to 143 as the FSL reports, whereas the said exhibits are, in fact, the C.A. reports which had already been brought on record by putting the same to the Investigating Officer, Shahaji (PW-6). Consequently, the subsequent order dated 16-06-2026 passed below Exhibit-164, whereby the application filed by the prosecution came to be allowed, also cannot be sustained as the same appears to have been passed mechanically only on the ground that earlier application was allowed, without recording proper satisfaction as to the need of examining the witness PW 6. The said order is a consequence of the earlier order dated 25-05-2026, which itself suffers from non-application of mind insofar as it recalls PW-6. Hence, I am inclined to pass the following order:

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.

Needless to mention that this Court has not commented upon the merits of the prayers to recall PW-6 to prove the FSL reports of mobile phones of accused and victim, hard disk/CD. The Trial Court shall decide the same on its own merits without getting influenced by any observations of this Court.