ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

Lawyers are abstaining from appearing before the Court.

2. This court had passed the order dated 22.02.2023 wherein it was deemed fit to seek an explanation from the presiding officer who had passed the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2022 before placing the file before Hon'ble Chief Justice.

3. A meticulous perusal of the letter dated 27.02.2023, sent by the presiding officer who had passed the impugned judgment dated 12.07.2022, to Registrar (Judicial) gives no whiff of any plausible reason or cause for commission of such a blatant mistake rather from the very beginning to the end, it appears from the explanation put forward by the presiding officer that he has endeavoured to absolve himself of the mistake and oversight.

4. For the observations made by this Court regarding the in-existence of the cross-examination of PW-1 on the file, copying of other witness' cross-examination in place of the cross-examination of PW-1 without application of mind and passing of the judgment without paying attention to the aforesaid goof-up, it is stated by the learned judge that the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of PW-1, who is the mother of the victim, were recorded on 01.02.2020 and thereafter, post alteration of charge, they were again recorded on 23.12.2020 and that he was not posted at the Special Court at that time. Another presiding officer, who was posted there at that point in time, i.e. on 23.12.2020, recorded the statement of PW-1. He has taken refuge of the provisions of Sections 276 and 278 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to state that he had no basis to consider that evidence of PW-1 as not correct and wrong. As per him, since Section 276 CrPC provides that the chief and cross examinations of a witness are to be taken in writing, as stated by the said witness, under the direction and superintendence of the presiding officer and that the presiding officer shall sign the statement so recorded in writing and the same shall form a part of the record, he could not doubt the correctness of the statement so recorded. Similarly, he has further stated that as Section 278 CrPC provides that after the evidence of a witness is complete, then the same shall be read over to the said witness in the presence of the accused or his pleader and if need arises, the same can be corrected but in this case no such objection was raised and therefore, there was no occasion to doubt the statement so recorded. It is further pointed out by him that the then presiding officer has remarked that the evidence was read over to the witness, the witness agreed to having heard and understood the statement and then, accepted it to be correct and appended her signature on the same. The signature of the presiding officer were also appended on the statement of this witness (PW-1).

5. The anxiousness of this court or the question that was put forth was not for the purpose of making correction in the statement already recorded rather it was the intention of this Court to unearth the reason for committing such a mistake where when apparently the cross-examination of PW-1 did not match and was not in tune with the examination-in-chief of PW-1, then before basing a conviction on such evidence, it was not considered necessary to ponder upon this aspect also while delivering the impugned judgment. Before reaching on a conclusion of guilt or any finding, the evidence brought on record is required to be meticulously examined and duly appreciated. In the firm opinion of this Court, it is expected from the learned judge to think over this concern, more particularly over the fact that the cross-examination of PW-1 is the same as that of PW-5 without change of any word, phras