Judgment:
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh .....Criminal Misc.
No.M-5763 of 2014 ....Date of decision:17.2.2014 Makhana alias Rajesh Rani and another ...Petitioners v.
State of Punjab ...Respondent ...Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Inderjit Singh ....Present: Mr.Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioners....Inderjit Singh, J.
Petitioners-Makhana alias Rajesh Rani and Gogi alias Piari have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing the impugned order dated 20.1.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathankot (Annexure-P.1).whereby the learned Court below has declined to recall the witness, namely, Dr.
Rakesh Sarpal.
The allegations against the petitioners are that Usha Rani (since deceased) had thrown her garbage to which petitioner No.1 had raised objection.
Being annoyed, the petitioners had poured kerosene oil on Usha Rani and had set her on fire.
She succumbed to the injuries and accordingly the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC.
It is also stated that during the trial, the prosecution examined Dr.
Rakesh Sarpal as PW-3.
As per the affidavit submitted by Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.03 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
No.M-5763 of 2014 [2].the doctor, there were superficial deep burns hundred per cent over the body of the deceased.
The cross-examination of the said witness was conducted very briefly.
It did not come into evidence in the examination- in-chief or in the cross-examination as to whether a person with 100% burn injuries can thumb mark the statement.
I have gone through the record and have heard learned counsel for the petitioneRs.From the record, I find that Dr.
Rakesh Sarpal (PW-3) has already been examined in the Court in examination-in-chief and has also deposed regarding the post-mortem examination.
The doctor in examination-in-chief has stated that there were superficial to deep burns, 100% all over the body, the skin was pealed off from the back of chest and abdomen, from arms and legs.
There were blisters over the right ankle area.
The opportunity was given to the accused to cross-examine the witness.
Though, the cross-examination is brief, as per the copy placed on the record, but the only ground for re-summoning the doctor, as stated in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., is that whether the hand of the deceased was 100% burnt or not, for proper adjudication of the case.
After the perusal of the order of the learned trial Court, I do not find any ground to recall the doctor for this purpose.
Otherwise also, there is nothing in the application as to why this question was not asked at that time.
Otherwise also, if the doctor described the burn 100%, it does not mean that the whole body was burnt 100%.
It is in the technical language they say the burn on the parts of the body and give the Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.03 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr.
Misc.
No.M-5763 of 2014 [3].percentage.
There is nothing in the application as to how this question is material.
Therefore, from the above, I find that there is no illegality committed by the Additional Sessions Judge by dismissing the application.
Hence, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
February 17, 2014.
(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.03.03 11:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh