.^y'' HI6H COURT OF CHH<4mS6ARH AT BILASRJR Cr.M.P.No.622 of 2008 PvW'wner Munku ftam Sarthi, S/o Late S.K.Sarriii, Aged about 63 years, R/o Chakradhor Nagar, Koser Para, Raigarh, &fstt.Raigarh (C.@.) yefvus Resoondent State of Chhattisgarh Through Oistrict Magistrate, bistrict Jashpur {C6} (PETCTION UN&ER SECTION 482 OF Cr.P.C.) (SB; Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Shcrma, J.) Mr. Manindra Shrivastavc, Senior counse! with Mr. Mcneesh Sharma, counsei for •t+ie petitioner. ter. Sushii Dubey, oovt. Advocate for the respondent/State. OKAL OR&ER ^asssd ors 2"d Febr<jKiry. 2009) The petitioner has filed this petition for seeking appropriote dir-ectiori for cross-examination of the witnesses namely, Smt.Nirmata M'nj (PW-15), Norbar-t Khalkho (PW-16), RanjnunOT beepak (PW-17), Smt. Knr'meta Kujur (PW-18), Inspector S.R.Dhrutlnhre (PW-19) and Deputy Superintendent of Potice &r. S.Rathore Q'W-20) who hnve b«senexam'ned by the prosecution but have not been cross-examined by the defence o" the ground of inability of the advocote who had undergone surgery of his eya, in Sessions Tria! No.35/2005 pendmg before the Sessions Judge, Jashpur. 2. At the outset, leamed counsel for the petitioner' frankly admits •t+iat counsel representing the petitioner before Ihe Sessions Judge wns not.ser'ous for cross-examination of the prosecution witnes^s. The aforesaid 6 witnesses hwe been examined by •tde prosecution but they haye ~ "ot cross-examined by the defence and an opportunity of -2 .-^^ cn>ss-exawir!ation has been ctosed by the Courfr ond on application for recatling the aforesnid witnesses for cross-exnmination has dism'ssed by the courf below vide order dtated 23.12.20C®.Lenrned counse.1 further submits that the aforesnid witnesses are the mater-ial witnesses nnd they are eyidence or mate''ial and necessary for just decision of the case. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner is nady to pay the expenses of -the witnesses for recalling Idem. 3. On the o-ther hand, lecmed counsel for the respondent/Stnte submits proper opportunity has been proyided to the petit'oner but the petitioner- has deliberatety failed to cross-exomirte the witnes%s present in the Court. 4. The petitioner is focing triat for •the offence punishcbte under Section 376 of the Indioin Pennl Code. Above witnesses namely, Sm+.Nirmcla Minj (PW-15), Norbart Khalkho yW-16), Rmjnurom beepak (PW-17), Smt. Karmela Kujur (PW-18), Inq^ector S.R.&hrutlahre (PW-19) and beputy Superintendent of Police br. S.Rnthor®ff>W-20) have been examined by •t+fe proseciition but they have not been cross-examined by the defence. The aforesnid witnesses are mater'iQl witnesses for- just and fair decision of the case <md in the absenca of effectiye cr-oss-examinort-ion, prejudice may be cnused to the petitioner. pair- tr->al is sine qua non of •the cdminal justice though the petitioner was not serious, but tnking into consideration the fact •that the petitioner is facing trial of the serious offef.ee punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, on opporhinity of cross-examination of the aforssaid witnesses would be propef for just cnd fnir decisioin of the case. S. Consequentty. the petition is allowed. Order dtrted 23.12.2008 pcssed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, 'n Sessions Trial No.38,/2005 is hereby set aside. The court betow is directed to recalt the wi-tnesses namely. Smt.Nirmata MinJ (PW-1S), Norbart Khclkho (PW-16), ftanjnumm Oeepak (PW-17), Smt. Karmela Kujur pW-18), Inspector S.R.&hru+lahre ( ...i.. a— -z- yW-19) and beputy Superintendent of Police &>•- S.Rcrthore (PW-20) for their cr-oss-exam'nation on filing an applicfft-ion for issuance of summons to •the aforeassid witnesses clong with necessary expenses wh'ch may incur for recalling -the erforesaid witnesses on behalf of the petitioner, wjthin a period of 15 dbys from today. 7. In view of above, I.A.No.(M/20(% stemds disposed of. B/- Sd/- T.P. Shanna Judge