Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.4.202 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railways) Ajmer, whereby the learned Magistrate has convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 392 IPC and Section 145 of the Railways Act. For the former offence, he has sentenced the petitioner to one year of R.I., and has imposed a fine of Rs. 2000/- and has further directed the petitioner to undergo three months of R.I., in default thereof. For the latter offence, the petitioner has been sentenced to six months of S.I., and has been imposed with a fine of Rs. 500/- and has been directed to further undergo one month S.I., in default thereof. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.7.2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has reduced the petitioner's sentence to "as undergone" and has reduced his fine for offence under Section 392 IPC from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- and also reduced fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 200/- for offence under Section 145 of the Railways Act. However, the learned Judge has directed the petitioner to undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 2.7.1995, Tejaram (P.W.8), Mohd. Hanif (P.W.1) and Bashir Ali (P.W.2) lodged a report at Railway Police Station, Ajmer. In the said report, it was alleged that on 1.7.1995 they are coming from Ahmedabad to Ajmer. When the train reached at Sendhra Station, the petitioner came there and told that the complainant and others were travelling in a women's compartment. He asked for their tickets. He asked for money. While the train started, the petitioner slapped Tejaram and snatched money and ticket from him. The Railway Police lodged a criminal case under Section 392 IPC. The accused petitioner was arrested at Ajmer Railway Station.

3. In order to support its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses and produced some documents. The statement of the accused-petitioner was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the sides, vide judgment dated 30.4.2002, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the offences as mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Ajmer. The case was committed for disposal of he appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Ajmer. Vide judgment dated 10.7.2003, the learned Judge has reduced the fine and sentences as mentioned above. Still being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the com-plainant Tejaram (P.W.8) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly Mohd. Hanif (P.W.1) and Bashir Ali (P.W.2), the two eye-witnesses, in the case, have equally turned hostile. Yet, the learned trial Court has convicted the petitioner for the aforementioned offences.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has desperately tried to argue that he testimonies of some of the witnesses were recorded when the petitioner had absconded during the course of trial. Therefore, no opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses was given to him. Hence, the mandatory provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C., has been violated. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Banchhanidhi Singh @ Nani Singh vs. State of Orissa (1990 Cri.L.J. 397) and Bal Kishan vs. State of Rajasthan (1997 Law Suit (Raj.) 104).

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has contended that merely because the eye-witnesses have turned hostile, it does not mean that their entire testimony should be discarded. The testimony of hostile witnesses should be accepted to the extent that it supports the prosecution case. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the complainant in his cross-examination has already stated that he has entered into a compromise with the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document