PUSHKAR SINGH KHATI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Pushkar Singh Khati
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Since present revision is received through Jail Authorities, therefore, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate, present in the Court, is requested to assist the Court. He has accepted the request of this Court. Therefore, Mr. Pramod Tiwari, is appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of revisionist. Present revision was filed by revisionist through Jail Authorities, Almora in case crime no. 2 of 2012 under Section 304-B, 498A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act challenging order dated 05.07.2012 and 19.07.2012, 30.08.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 29 of 2012 whereby application to recall PW1, PW2 and PW3 for cross examination was rejected.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case inter alia are that Chitra got married with revisionist on 07.03.2011; Chitra was found dead on 10.03.2012 in her matrimonial house; father of Chitra, Kheem Singh Kaira lodged an FIR with the police station Someshwar, District Almora on 10.03.2012 making accusation against accused revisionist and his mother (motherin-law of Chitra) stating therein that both the accused administrated poison to his daughter Chitra, as both of them were annoyed for bringing less dowry; on the report, so filed by Kheem Singh Kaira, chick FIR No. 2 of 2012 was lodged under Section 304-B, 498-A and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body of Chitra on 11.03.2012. On examination, no internal or external ante mortem injury was found and cause of death could not be ascertained by doctor, however, viscera were preserved and sent for chemical examination but chemical examination report has yet not come suggesting the case of poisoning.
(3.) After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. On 05.07.2012, statements of PW1 Kheem Singh Kaira and PW2 Vimla Kaira were recorded. On the same day i.e. on 05.07.2012, an application for seeking adjournment was moved by accused revisionist stating therein his counsel Chamu Singh Gasiyal was not present in the Court, however, learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the application of the accused revisionist. Since accused revisionist was semi literate person and was not well conversant with the legal procedure, therefore, he himself could not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. Consequently, learned Additional Sessions Judge, was pleased to close opportunity to cross examine PW1 and PW2 and was further pleased to adjourn the case for 11.07.2012 for rest of the prosecution evidence. On 11.07.2012, adjournment was sought by prosecution and on the request of prosecution, trial was adjourned for 19.07.2012. Again on 19.07.2012, an application was moved by the accused revisionist to recall PW1 and PW2 for cross-examination, as on the previous date crossexamination could not be done due to absence of his Advocate.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.