Haribabu Vs. State of U.P. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. .....(x) sc/st act, i have heard learned counsel for the applicant who has relied upon the decision in the case of a learned single judge of this court in the case of jokhan patel v. state of u.p. (2001) 2 jic 459.8. the facts of this case are that in sessions trial no, 96 of 1998 an application was moved by the accused for recalling pw-2 smt. marata for further cross examination, she is the lady who is alleged to have bean molested by the accused. the only vague ground mentioned in the application was that during the earlier cross-examination certain main points were left out from being asked. the addl. sessions judge has rejected the said application on the ground of vagueness.9. in cases of rape and outraging modesty of a woman recalling the victim for evidence requires some exceptionally serious grounds. therefore, i am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the sessions judge does not call for interference under the inherent powers of this court. having regard to these facts, the decision relied upon does not help the applicant. the present application under section 482 cr.p.c. is accordingly dismissed.

Judgment:

ORDER

Sushil Harkauli, J.

1. Persons who have witnessed a crime are extremely reluctant in giving evidence. Prosecution witnesses are turning hostile every day. If the administration of criminal justice is to be saved from total collapse, a drastic change in the mind set is needed for the Judges, lawyers, litigants and the police.

2. When a witness comes to depose before the Court in a criminal trial, he is doing public service to the criminal justice system. While the Judge, the lawyer is paid for the time he devotes to litigation and the litigant has a personal interest in the litigation, no remuneration is paid to the witness for his time and effort. He has no personal interest or stake in the litigation. The witness is therefore entitled to receive all respect and protection for doing that service to the society.

3. It is essential having regard to reluctance on the part of people to give evidence in the present times, that the police should create a 'witness protection culture' and give out a very clear impression by their consistent conduct that if the accused threatens or tampers with the witnesses (before or after the evidence) he will not be spared by the police, just as earlier there used to be a clear impression given by the police that if the accused touches a policeman he will not be spared. It is only on such firm impressions that the State will be able to deter the problem of hostile witnesses in criminal trials.

4. It is most undesirable that after giving evidence, the witness be left at the mercy of the persons against whom he has deposed in his evidence.

5. Equally it is the duty of the Courts, counsel and the parties to litigation to realize and appreciate the inconvenience of the witnesses and not to summon and resummon the witnesses in a casual manner to suit the convenience of individual lawyers, litigants or for that matter even the Courts.

6. Merely because the witness could not be properly examined or cross examined earlier due to negligence or carelessness or incompetence, he should not be summoned repeatedly for giving evidence, unless the Court feels that the interest of justice would suffer irreparably and gravely and even in such a situation the inconvenience of the recalled witness should be compensated by 'realistic' costs payable to the witness.

7. In respect of the present case Under Sections 354/504 IPC & 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act, I have heard learned counsel for the applicant who has relied upon the decision in the case of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Jokhan Patel v. State of U.P. (2001) 2 JIC 459.

8. The facts of this case are that in Sessions trial No, 96 of 1998 an application was moved by the accused for recalling PW-2 Smt. Marata for further cross examination, She is the lady who is alleged to have bean molested by the accused. The only vague ground mentioned in the application was that during the earlier cross-examination certain main points were left out from being asked. The Addl. Sessions Judge has rejected the said application on the ground of vagueness.

9. In cases of rape and outraging modesty of a woman recalling the victim for evidence requires some exceptionally serious grounds. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Sessions Judge does not call for interference under the inherent powers of this Court. Having regard to these facts, the decision relied upon does not help the applicant. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.