KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE,J. - (1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking the quashing of impugned orders dated 6.7.2015, 10.9.2015 as well as order dated 26.9.2015 in S.T. No.32 of 2014, u/s 302 I.P.C . and 3(2)V SC/ ST Act , P.S. Ghatampur, district Kanpur Dehat (State Vs. Dabbu Singh Parihar and it is also prayed to direct the court below to re-examine the witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 of the case which is pending before the court of Special Judge SC/ ST Act , Kanpur Dehat.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA. Perused the record.
(3.) Submission of counsel for the applicant is that this matter relates to grievous category of offences and therefore, the punishment liability of the accused may also be of extreme nature. It was pointed out by the counsel that two important prosecution witnesses have gone uncross-examined as the request to get the matter adjourned was refused by the trial court. It is further submitted that ordinarily the trite principle of criminal jurisprudence is that the testimony which has not been tested should be rejected. This principle is of course subject to the facts and circumstances of each individual case and it has to be seen that whether the accused was given an adequate opportunity to cross examine the witness or not. If the conduct of the accused shows that deliberately the opportunity was not availed by him and on frivolous reasons the right of cross examination was not availed of by him for no justifiable cause then the court has all the rights to close the opportunity. But the counsel has tried to show that the opportunity of cross examination of both the witnesses i.e. P.W.2 and P.W.3 was closed, on the very first request of adjournment sought on behalf of accused. It is not a case according to the applicant's counsel in which repeated adjournments were given or where the conduct of counsel was such to show that there was a deliberate attempt to procrastinate the matter and delay the proceedings. Submission is that the deprivation of opportunity of cross examination would go to the roots of the very concept of fair trial and which shall be to the prejudice of the right of accused to defend himself, and may occasion in actual failure of justice. Counsel has tried to show circumstances under which the prosecution witnesses could not be examined on the first date by the counsel.;