Singh Raj Vs. State of U.P.

.....must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - 3. it is now well settled by catena of decisions of apex court that a lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight commited by public prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant material or in eliciting relevant answers from the witnesses.orderj.c. gupta, j.1.heard sri sunil kumar, counsel for the applicant in revision and learned a.g.a. this revision is directed against,the order dated 24-4-2001 whereby the learned sessions judge has summoned three wit nesses in exercise of powers conferred on it under section 311, cr.p.c.2. learned counsel for the applicant submitted before the court that after the parties had adduced evidence and the court had heard arguments, the court below has summoned the three witnesses who were cited in chargesheet whom the prosecution did not examine earlier and thus the trial court is filling up lacuna left by the prpsecution.3. it is now well settled by catena of decisions of apex court that a lacuna in prosecution is not to be equated with the fall out of an oversight commited by public prosecutor during trial, either in producing relevant material or in eliciting relevant answers from the witnesses. lacuna in the prosecution case must be understood as the inherent weakness or a latent wedge in the matrix of the prosecution, case. no party can be foreclosed from correcting errors. if proper evidence was not produced or relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, it is the duty of the court to rectify such mistake for doing justice between the parties. three witnesses whom the trial court has now summoned were interrogated during investigation and the trial court has thought their evidence to be necessary for a just decision of the case. by no stretch of imagination, their non-production could be characterised as a lacuna in prosecution case. this revision, thus has no merit and is accordingly dismissed with the observation that the trial court shall not make every endeavour to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.