Vinod Kumar Alias Bodi Vs. Vinod Kumar Alias Bodi

Vinod Kumar Alias Bodi vs Vinod Kumar Alias Bodi

Type Court Judgment Court Punjab and Haryana Decided Aug 19, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1069686

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1069686
Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On: Aug 19, 2013

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vinod Kumar Alias Bodi

Respondent

Vinod Kumar Alias Bodi

AI Legal Summary

Get an instant AI-powered legal breakdown - case summary, ratio decidendi, key issues, and more.

Excerpt

.....sufficient cross-examination was conducted upon her on behalf of the petitioner-accused. not prosecutrix wants her to be re- examined and accused also wants her to be further cross-examined. request was declined by learned trial court as the same was opposed by the prosecution. in view of these facts it seems that prosecutrix has been won meenu over by the accused. sufficient reasons have been given by learned trial 2013.08.20 09:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crl.r.no.2559 of 2013(o&m) -2- court dismissing applications filed by present petitioner-accused and respondent no.2. in view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this court. there is no merit in the present revision petition. the same is hereby dismissed. 19.8.2013 (ram chand gupta) meenu judge meenu 2013.08.20 09:33 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Full Judgment

Crl.R.No.2559 of 2013(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.R.No.2559 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: August 19, 2013 Vinot Kumar alias Bodi .....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.M.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner....RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 25.5.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which application filed by respondent no.2 for permission to allow her re- examination and second application filed by the petitioner-accused for recalling respondent no.2 for further cross-examination were dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide which applications filed by petitioner -accused as well as by respondent no.2 were dismissed.

Prosecutrix,i.e., respondent no.2 was already examined and cross-examined at length on behalf of the petitioner-accused, in which she simply deposed that rape was committed upon her by the petitioner-accused while she was unconscious and that accused also prepared her movie in naked stage and thereafter he had been black-mailing her and committing rape upon her.

Sufficient cross-examination was conducted upon her on behalf of the petitioner-accused.

not prosecutrix wants her to be re- examined and accused also wants her to be further cross-examined.

Request was declined by learned trial Court as the same was opposed by the prosecution.

In view of these facts it seems that prosecutrix has been won Meenu over by the accused.

Sufficient reasons have been given by learned trial 2013.08.20 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl.R.No.2559 of 2013(O&M) -2- Court dismissing applications filed by present petitioner-accused and respondent no.2.

In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court.

There is no merit in the present revision petition.

The same is hereby dismissed.

19.8.2013 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Meenu 2013.08.20 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh