SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(MP) 1281

A.K.GOHIL
Uday Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
G.S. Sharma for applicant; Smt. Anita Sharma, Panel Lawyer for State; R.P. Gupta for respondents No.1 to 5.

JUDGMENT


The petitioner, who is complainant, has filed this revision against the impugned order dated 5.7.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1997. By the impugned order, learned trial Court rejected the application of complainant for recalling PW 11 Vishwanath Sharma. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly after lapse of two years and lengthy cross-examination has already been done with the said witness. Though PW 11 Vishwanath Sharma has been declared hostile in the Sessions Trial, but the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier in another case No. 195/1995, the said witness has given a statement that he is being threatened not to give any evidence in murder case of Narendra Singh and questions and explanation relating to his earlier statement could not be asked. The reason might be that the Government Pleader may not have full instruction in the matter. Therefore, the re-cross-examination of PW 11 is necessary to confront him from his earlier statement in other case. Prayer for recalling the said witness for the purposes of re-cross-examination is







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top