Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. Gursher Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sumit Jain, Addl. AG, Haryana; Mr. K.D.S. Hooda, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta, J.

By way of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner, who is the complainant in case FIR No.66 dated 02.03.2020 under Sections 302/ 34, 120-B of the IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Civil Lines, District Hisar, Haryana, has prayed for quashing of order dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for re-examination of the petitioner as prosecution witness, was declined.

2. Perusal of the paper-book would reveal that FIR was lodged on the statement of Sushma Devi (petitioner) wife of Dharampal (deceased). She is the current Sarpanch of Village Sulkhani. As per her statement, on 02.03.2020 at about 08:30 a.m., she had gone to take bath in the bathroom, whereas her husband Dharampal had gone out of house in the street to throw the garbage, when she heard sound of crackers in the street. She came out of the bathroom and saw that her husband was lying on the ground. She further saw that a boy wearing a helmet was firing shots at her husband with a pistol, whereas another boy was standing beside him, whose face was also covered with a cloth. She raised noise but both the assailants fled away on the bike parked in the street along with their weapons. Hearing the sound of bullets and the noise raised by her, many people of the locality reached the spot. Her husband Dharampal was taken to the hospital but was declared brought dead. She named some persons namely Ramesh Patarkar, Amin and Salin etc. to be the suspects, as they had been evicted from illegally encroached panchayat land by her (complainant).

After conducting the necessary investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed.

3.1 The testimony of complainant Sushma Devi- petitioner as PW-1 was recorded by the trial Court on 22.09.2022, copy of which is Annexure P-4, in which after giving the FIR version, she disclosed that on 02.03.2020, in the evening police had shown her a footage in the phone, in which she had identified Vinod and Sandeep @ Sandy, who had fired shots upon her husband.

3.2 Besides, during her statement, the three accused Sandeep, Vinod and Jagdish @ Sonu were produced in the Court through Video Conferencing from Central Jail-1, Hisar. She (petitioner) identified Vinod @ Vinodi to have committed the murder of her husband Dharampal. Another accused Vikrant @ Mukesh was produced through Video Conferencing from Bhondsi Jail, Gurugram and shown to the witness but she failed to identify him. Apart from this, a sealed parcel containing a pen drive was opened in the Court. The pen drive was played on the screen and after seeing the same, she (petitioner) stated that the person wearing the helmet was Vinod and the person sitting on the pillion was Sandeep @ Sandy and that the footage had been shown to her by the police. According to her, she was present near the boundary wall of the house, from where she had seen the accused firing at her husband.

4.1 After recording the testimony of PW-1 Sushma Devi on 22.09.2022, an application was moved by the said petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. (copy Annexure P-5) on 05.12.2022 so as to recall her and to physically identify the accused. According to her, when her statement was recorded in the Court on 22.09.2022, and she was asked to identify accused through VC, she had identified Vinod @ Vinodi but other two accused could not be identified through Video Conferencing but she could identify the accused if physically produced before her. Stating that identification of the accused was primary and substantive evidence and that said identification was essential in the Court, prayer was made by the petitioner to recall her.

4.2 Said application has been dismissed by the Court by way of impugned order dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-6).

5.1 Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned counsel that at the time of recording the statement of PW1 Sushma- petitioner, le