- (1.) IN this matter, the trial of Sessions Case no.34/2002 under Section 302 IPC pending in the court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana titled as State of Raj. v. Surpat Surana & ors. had been stayed vide order dated 16.9.2009 of this Court, some four years back. It is also agreed position that after grant of stay by this Court, the file of this Court was not traceable and ultimately, the file of this Court was reconstituted. It is also agreed position that in the trial court, some of the accused-persons are in jail but it is certain that accused- petitioner Manjeet Singh is on bail in the trial court. It is apparent that in a murder case, a person who is on bail, often tries to delay the trial by his best efforts. In this matter some of the accused-persons are suffering in jail since long.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.4.2009 of the trial court whereby his application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the trial court. He has argued that the order of the trial court is perverse and arbitrary and deserves dismissal. But the opposite party has argued that order dated 9.4.2009 passed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by Addl. Sessions Judge, Deedwana in Sessions Case No.34/2002 under Section 302 IPC is perfectly justified. By perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the case was fixed on 15.1.2009 in the trial court for defence evidence. On that day, defence counsel sought adjournment and case was fixed for 29.1.2009 for defence evidence. On that day also, counsel for the defence sought adjournment and so the case was adjourned to 17.3.2009 and then to 9.4.2009 on the request of the defence counsel. On 26.2.2009 written arguments were submitted by the prosecution side and on 17.3.2009, written arguments were submitted by two other accused persons in the case and on that day also, accused- petitioner Manjeet Singh and two others sought adjournment to file written arguments and then on 9.4.2009 instead of filing written or oral argument, the accused-petitioner Manjeet Singh submitted application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to call by summon three witnesses Dr. Raja Ram, Dr. Bhagwan Singh and Ummaid Singh (Hotel owner) as defence witnesses.
(3.) THE trial court had dismissed the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. filed by accused-petitioner Manjeet Singh because the incident had not alledgedly occurred at the hotel and so the hotel owner was not a relevant witness. He appears to have been called only to delay the case of murder charge. Similarly, out of three doctors who had conducted the post-mortem examination, one of the doctors was examined in relation to post-mortem report and the remaining two doctors were deleted by the prosecution in the trial court and now defence counsel had sought permission to call those two doctors also as defence witnesses and it is pertinent to note here that during the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that he wants to ask nothing about the post-mortem report from those two doctors but he wants to cross-examine those doctors in relation to other things because they were the doctors who had declared the victim dead.;