IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI

th

ON THE 15 OF OCTOBER, 2025 CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9841 of 2025 MONTI YADAV Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Shafiqullah - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Amit Garg - Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1.

ORDER This Criminal Appeal under Section 14 A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 22.07.2025 passed in SC ATR No.278/2024 by Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur, whereby learned trial Court has closed the right of the appellant to cross examine the prosecution witnesses Ashok Choudhary ( P.W.1)

and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 22.07.2025 the prosecution witnesses Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2)

appeared before the learned trial Court, and on the said date they settled their dispute with the co-accused persons namely Sourabh Devak, Adharsh Tiwari and Sidharth Dewak but P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not settle their dispute with the present appellant as in as much as the appellant failed to give handsome amount to them and thereafter, they had given statement in favour of other co-accused persons by making statement against the present appellant. As the counsel for the present appellant was not prepared to cross examine the aforesaid Prosecution witnesses, he sought time from the learned trial Court to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses. But vide impugned order dated 22.7.2025 the learned trial Court closed the right of the appellant to cross examine them. On above grounds, it has been prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and one more opportunity be granted to the appellant to cross-examine aforesaid witnesses Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2).

3. Learned Counsel for the State has opposed the appeal and submits that appellant has been granted sufficient opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2, therefore, no ground is made out for recalling the prosecution witnesses Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2). On above grounds, it has been prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed.

4. Heard. Perused the record of the case.

5 . The order sheet dated 22.7.2025 of the trial Court as well as the statement recorded before the trial Court of Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2) reveals that the Court has fixed the time for recording of evidence at 2.45 P.M. At that time both the witnesses have been examined. They did not depose against other co-accused but they deposed against the present appellant Monti and since both witnesses have not deposed against other co-accused persons, they cross-examined these witnesses in summarize manner but as far as present appellant is concerned, definitely appropriate cross examination was required to be done on his behalf. In these circumstances, the arguments put forth by learned counsel on behalf of present appellant seems to be convincing and an opportunity to cross examine the above witnesses may be granted in favour of the present appellant subject to payment of cost.

6. In view of above, appeal filed by the appellant is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (total Rs.2000/-) to be paid to each prosecution witnesses i.e. Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2). and one more opportunity is granted to appellant to cross-examine prosecution witness Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2). Trial Court is directed to re-call the aforesaid witness i.e prosecution witness Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2). for cross-examination on behalf of the appellant. Appellant's counsel is directed to cross examine the prosecution witness Ashok Choudhary (P.W.1) and Raja Ahirwar (P.W.2). on the date fixed or given by the trial court. It is also made clear that as and when aforesaid witness i.e. prosecution witness Ashok Chou