- (1.) B. A. Zaidi, J. Applicant is an accused in S. T. No. 1263 of 2006 (state of U. P. v. Dheeraj) pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Muzaffar Nagar.
(2.) HE has come to this Court under Section 407, Cr. P. C. The facts relating to this application are that the Trial Judge summoned the prosecution witnesses complainant P. W. 1 Naseem, his wife P. W. 2 Smt. Naseema and P. W. 4 Rafikan for re-examination after they were declared hostile, cross-examined and discharged. The applicant says that on 29-11-2007, when P. W. 1 Naseem appeared for re-examination, the Trial Judge threatened him, saying that in case he did not sup port the prosecution case besides punishing the accused, he will punish him too, and why had he not brought alongwith him, his wife P. W. 2 Smt. Naseema. The Trial Judge re-examined P. W. 2 Smt. Naseema on 8-1 -2008, despite, that the defence Counsel, was ill and an application was moved seeking adjournment. For all these reasons, the applicant had reason to believe that justice, may not be done, to him. Ave heard Sri Amit Krishna, Advocate for the accused-applicant and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Additional Government Advocate for the State. As will appear from the aforenoted facts, the Trial Judge has not exceeded his limits and has not demonstrated in any manner a partisan attitude. The deci sion to recall the witnesses was made with a view to discover the truth. The age of the prosecutrix is 8 year and the medical examination report mentions that the Hymen was torn and there was redness in the area, which prima facie indicates, that she was subjected to sexual assault. The accused was named in the F. I. R. lodged by the father, and now he turns round and denies the involvement of the accused and so does the mother, and the other witnesses, which clearly indi cates that there is something wrong somewhere.
(3.) THE desideratum of a judicial trial is the discovery of truth, and a Judge, must make all efforts within the parameter of law, to unearth the truth. THE judge cannot go round and meet people at-the place of occurrence, and, try to find out things for himself as used to be done previously, by Adjudicators. THE Judge has to confine his activities to the Court-room and try to uncover the real facts by summoning witnesses, and by asking them about the incident. This is not only the right, but the duty of the Judge. He not supposed to be a passive spectator or a Tape Recorder of the evidence. He has to actively participate in the proceed ings, with a view, to find out the real truth. If he does not do so, he will abdicating his functions. The judge in this case should have initially, put the requisite questions to the witnesses when they were declare hostile. In any case, the realization downed upon him later, and he has rectified his short- coming, and recalled the witnesses, for putting necessary question to them.;