Rama Rani Alias Rama Devi Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1066133
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-13-2012
AppellantRama Rani Alias Rama Devi
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
crl.r.no.3961 of 2012(o&m) -1- in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. crl.r.no.3961 of 2012(o&m) date of decision: december 13, 2012 rama rani alias rama devi .....petitioner v. state of haryana ......respondent coram: hon'ble mr.justice ram chand gupta present: mr.c.b.goel, advocate for the petitioner.....ram chand gupta, j.(oral) crl.m.no.74599 of 2012 application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. crl.r.no.3961 of 2012 the present revision petition has been filed against order dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned trial court vide which request of petitioner for sending ruqa ex.pz for examination from some handwriting expert was declined. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned trial court. briefly stated, petitioner alongwith co-accused is facing trial in fir no.549 dated 17.8.2011 under sections 406, 498-a and 304-b ipc, registered at police station city jind. petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased. evidence of the prosecution was already concluded. the case was fixed for defence evidence of petitioner-accused. six witnesses were already examined by petitioner-accused. prem singh, record keeper of the hospital, was examined twice as dw1 and dw4. three applications were moved on behalf of the accused to summon defence witnesses. in the third application it was mentioned that it be considered as last application to crl.r.no.3961 of 2012(o&m) -2- summon the defence witnesses. it is pertinent to mention here that ruqa ex.pz was exhibited in evidence in the statement of krishan kumar, si, who was examined as pw14, and was cross-examined at length. it has been observed by learned additional sessions judge in the impugned order that no question was put in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused about ruqa ex.pz. no application was moved on behalf of the petitioner-accused to direct the prosecution to disclose the name of the doctor, who had written ruqa ex.pz. no effort was made to call the concerned doctor in the defence despite the fact that three applications were moved to summon the defence evidence. it has been observed by learned district judge in the impugned order that there is some over-writing in mentioning the time in ruqa. however, there is no cutting in the said ruqa. hence, 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 or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this court. there is no merit in the present revision petition. the same is hereby dismissed. 13.12.2012 (ram chand gupta) meenu judge
Judgment:

Crl.R.No.3961 of 2012(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl.R.No.3961 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: December 13, 2012 Rama Rani alias Rama Devi .....Petitioner v.

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.C.B.Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.....RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.74599 of 2012 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

Crl.R.No.3961 of 2012 The present revision petition has been filed against order dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned trial Court vide which request of petitioner for sending ruqa Ex.PZ for examination from some handwriting expert was declined.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

Briefly stated, petitioner alongwith co-accused is facing trial in FIR No.549 dated 17.8.2011 under Sections 406, 498-A and 304-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Jind.

Petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased.

Evidence of the prosecution was already concluded.

The case was fixed for defence evidence of petitioner-accused.

Six witnesses were already examined by petitioner-accused.

Prem Singh, Record Keeper of the Hospital, was examined twice as DW1 and DW4.

Three applications were moved on behalf of the accused to summon defence witnesses.

In the third application it was mentioned that it be considered as last application to Crl.R.No.3961 of 2012(O&M) -2- summon the defence witnesses.

It is pertinent to mention here that ruqa Ex.PZ was exhibited in evidence in the statement of Krishan Kumar, SI, who was examined as PW14, and was cross-examined at length.

It has been observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in the impugned order that no question was put in the cross-examination on behalf of the accused about ruqa Ex.PZ.

No application was moved on behalf of the petitioner-accused to direct the prosecution to disclose the name of the doctor, who had written ruqa Ex.PZ.

No effort was made to call the concerned doctor in the defence despite the fact that three applications were moved to summon the defence evidence.

It has been observed by learned District Judge in the impugned order that there is some over-writing in mentioning the time in ruqa.

However, there is no cutting in the said ruqa.

Hence, 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 or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court.

There is no merit in the present revision petition.

The same is hereby dismissed.

13.12.2012 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge