J.B. PARDIWALA, J.

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners original accused persons seek to question the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, dated 19th June, 2014 below Exhibit145 in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2011, by which the objections raised by the defence counsel on behalf of the applicants herein as regards the admissibility of a part of the evidence of a witness was overruled.

2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under:-

(a) The applicants before me are original accused in Sessions Case No. 120 of 2011. They are being tried in the Court of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajkot, of the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 306, 498A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant No.1 before me is the husband of the deceased who committed suicide and the other applicants are the family members of the husband i.e. the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law.

3. It appears that the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Bhanuben Bhatti was in the box and she was being cross-examined by the defence counsel. The mother of the victim was confronted by the defence counsel with an omission in her police statement to the effect that she had not stated before the Police that she proposed to distribute the sale proceeds pursuant to the sale of a plot, the ownership of which was of her husband, equally amongst her daughters after her demise. The witness agreed to the same by deposing that she had not stated such a fact before the Police in her statement. However, at that point of time, she tried to explain as to why she had missed to state such a fact before the Police in her statement recorded in the course of the investigation.

4. It appears that the learned trial Judge thought fit to permit the witness to clarify and such clarification was also incorporated in the evidence of Smt. Bhanuben.

5. The defence counsel raised a serious objection to such a procedure adopted by the trial Judge, on the ground that once a witness is sought to be contradicted with his or her police statement, the witness is expected to either deny or agree with the same. However, according to the defence, the witness should not be permitted to clarify as to why she was not able to state such a fact before the police in her police statement, the fact which she therefore deposed for the first time before the Court in her cross examination.

6. It appears that such objection was raised by the defence counsel before the trial court substantially on the ground that if such explanations are permitted to be tendered and made a part of the deposition, then the defence would be seriously prejudiced of the right of the accused to effectively cross-examine such a witness and would get infringed. It was submitted before the trial Court on behalf of the defence counsel while raising an objection that if a witness is put to a question of fact and if any explanation comes from such a witness to such a factual question, the same could be considered. But, in so far as the question pertaining to the contradiction and omissions are concerned, then in that regard the witness should not be permitted to make inadvertent statement of her own and the same should be treated as inadmissible.

7. It appears from the impugned order that such objection was overruled by the trial court by observing that the same would be dealt with in the final judgment. However, the trial court thought fit to pass a reasoned order discussing the legality and validity of the objection raised and the same is the subject matter of challenge before me.

8. The learned Judge, while overruling the objection raised on behalf of the defence, made the following observations:

“7. The following portion of the deposition (Ex. 145) was read before this Court. ...Gujarati Portion”...Thus, the learned advocate mainta