- (1.) R. K. Rastogi, J. This is an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for quashing the order dated 10-10-2006 passed by Sri Umesh Chandra Saxena, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Meerut in S. T. No. 250 of 2004, State v. Rohtash and Ors.
(2.) THE facts relevant for disposal of this application are that S. T. No. 250 of 2004 is pending against the applicants Jagge, Mukesh and one Rohtash. THE statement of Babloo was recorded as P. W. 1 and he was cross-examined on 21-12-2005 and 20-1-2006. THEreafter the witness was discharged and the statements of certain other witnesses namely Smt. Kamlesh (P. W. 2) wife of the deceased, Shivcharan (P. W. 3) uncle of the deceased, Chhamanand (P. W. 4), brother-in-law of the deceased were recorded, and they turned hostile. THEreafter the applicants moved an application for further cross-examination of P. W. 1 and they specified four questions in their application. It was further specified in 5th paragraph that one dozen more questions are also required to be asked. This application was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge pointing out that P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 have already turned hostile and in this case there is testimony of P. W. 1 only who has supported the prosecution case and it was suspected that the accused persons might have settled their dispute outside the Court and so they wanted to put these questions to obtain answers in their favour and so the application was rejected with this observation. I have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants as well as the learned A. G. A. for the State. It is to be seen that an application cannot be rejected on the basis of some suspicion only. When the accused applicants wanted to put some questions to P. W. 1 which were necessary from their point of view, this prayer could not be rejected only on the ground that the witness could give reply in favour of the accused applicants. If any witness gives any reply favourable to the accused which is in contradiction to his earlier statement, he may be declared hostile, and it is open to the Court to draw his own inference, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, after proper appraisal of evidence, and as such I am of view that the application could not be rejected on the ground on which it has been rejected by the trial Court. If the witness willfully gives a false statement contrary to his earlier statement, he may be questioned as to which part of his statement was true and correct, and after having a reply on this point, he may be questioned as to why he had given a false statement and then suitable legal proceedings may be drawn against him for giving false evidence.
(3.) IT is, however, to be seen that the applicants have specified only four questions in their application, a copy of which has been filed alongwith this application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. IT has been stated in para 5 of that application that one dozen more questions are also required to be asked. IT is noteworthy that cross-examination of the witness has been completed and so some specified questions only can be put to him for cross- examination with the permission of the Court and permission cannot be granted to put any question which has not been specified in the application. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that he confines his prayer to put the questions No. 1 to 4 only and he shall not put any other question to P. W. 1. In that view of the matter, I set aside the order dated 10-10- 2006 passed by Sri Umesh Chandra Saxena, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 9, Meerut in S. T. No. 250 of 2004, State v. Rohtash and Ors. , and permit the accused applicants to further cross-examine P. W. 1 on questions No. 1 to 4 only as specified in the application dated 5-10-2006, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 2 to this application. No permission shall be granted to put any other question to the witness.;