AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the State of Gujarat seeks to question the legality and validity of the order dated 14.07.2017 passed below Exh.1 by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Deesa in the Sessions Case No.80 of 2013.
It appears from the materials on record that the respondents are facing the trial for the offence punishable under sections 364, 342, 307, 353, 120(B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The trial is on the verge of completion. It appears that the Investigating Officer failed to remain present before the Trial Court for his deposition on three occasions. In such circumstances, the Trial Court thought fit to close the evidence of the prosecution. Being dissatisfied with the same, the State is here before this Court with this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. Aditya Jadeja, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-original accused, vehemently opposed this application submitting that the Trial Court granted sufficient time to the Investigating Officer to appear for the purpose of recording of his evidence. However, on all the occasions, the Investigating Officer failed to remain present. In such circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in closing the evidence of the prosecution. Mr. Jadeja further pointed out that in the present case, the main witness, i.e., the injured witness is absconding. The prosecution has not been able to examine the injured witness. The learned counsel pointed out that the injured witness has been convicted in some another case for the offence of murder and is absconding.
Be that as it may, the evidence of an Investigating Officer in a criminal trial assumes its own importance. If the Investigating Officer is not examined for one reason or the other, it will have a direct impact on the case of the prosecution. It is true that the Investigating Officer is expected to remain present before the Trial Court, on the date fixed, for the purpose of recording of his evidence, but as pointed out by the learned APP, the Investigating Officer was assigned other duties, and in such circumstances, he was unable to remain present. I would like to give one last opportunity to the State for the purpose of examination of the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court shall fix one particular date, issue the summons and record the evidence of the Investigating Officer.
In view of the above, this application is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. Let the trial be now disposed of at the earliest with the judgment. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Direct service is permitted.