Shahroz and Another vs State of U.P.

Krishna Kumar, J.—This revision has been filed against the order dated 23.1.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad, whereby the prayer of the accused for further cross-examination of a witness was rejected.

Heard learned Counsel of the parties.

The learned Counsel of the revisionists contended that the counsel of the accused was not present and, therefore, the cross-examination could not be done and the accused should be allowed an opportunity for further cross-examination. From the papers filed, it is clear that the case was fixed for cross-examination of prosecutrix on 5.1.2001 but the adjournment was sought on the ground that the counsel of the accused had gone to Delhi. It is also clear that on earlier dates also opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine the witness when the examination-in-chief was done by the prosecution. The learned lower court allowed opportunity and fixed 23.1.2001 but on 23.1.2001 again adjournment application was moved by the accused that the counsel was engaged on that very date and as such he could not prepare the case. If the counsel of the accused was ill on 5.1.2001, the accused could have engaged another counsel for the next date which was fixed after 18 days. It is clear that the witness, who is prosecutrix, was being harassed by the accused. The adjournments were being prayed so that the prosecutrix may not appear before the Court again and again. It is also clear from the order that only on the request of the accused persons, the prosecutrix Km. Shahin was summoned for further cross-examination although her evidence was concluded in 1997 and that on the application dated 25.2.1997 of the accused, she was again summoned for cross-examination. The learned lower court has, therefore, committed no mistake in rejecting the application because more than sufficient opportunity was allowed to the accused persons. The accused cannot be allowed to harass the witness, particularly, when she is the prosecutrix in case u/s 376, I.P.C.

In view of the above facts, the revision has no force and in hereby rejected.