1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 426 of 2003 SANWTA RAM & ANR V/S STATE Mr. DK GODARA, for Mr. MD PUROHIT, for the appellant. Mr. JR CHOUDHARY for the complainant. Mr. SS SHARMA, Public Prosecutor. Date of Order : 20.2.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. JUDGMENT -------- The matter is being heard since 9.2.2009. During course of hearing while reading the evidence of P.W. 13 Dr. H.B.Usta, it transpired that during course of examination the counsel for the accused filed an application under Section 91, and the Public Prosecutor sought time to file reply to that application. Therefore, the statement of the witness was reserved, and was bound down to appear on the next date of hearing. This statement was recorded on 16.3.2002. However, after going through the entire record including the order sheets, we do not find any order having been passed on that application filed on 16.3.2002, nor do we find the statement of that witness P.W. 13 to have been 2 completed. From perusal of the application filed on that day, it transpires that since the doctor had clearly stated that he cannot state about the injuries of Sanwata Ram without looking at the injury report, and the injury report was not there on record, therefore, application was filed in that regard for direction to the prosecution to produce the injury report, and medical examination report of Sanwata Ram. Looking to the nature of defence taken, and the suggestions given to the various prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the disposal of this application on merits either ways was necessary before deciding the case finally on merits. If the Court felt summoning of the said injury report to be necessary, and then to record the statement of doctor, it was likely to have material effect on appreciation of evidence. Likewise, if the learned trial court was to refuse that application, then in that event also at least the statement of the doctor P.W.13 were required to be completed, and thereafter the matter was required to be decided. Thus, it is clear that the material procedural deficiencies has remained in the completion of trial. We also find on record various documents produced by the prosecution which have not been tendered in evidence, nor they have been put to the accused for admission/denial. Considering these circumstances, both the learned counsel for the accused and the complainant, and the learned Public Prosecutor submit that the matter may be remanded back to the learned trial court. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside, and the matter is sent back to the learned trial court for deciding the said application of 3 the accused dt. 16.3.2002 on merits in accordance with law, so also to decide such other applications which may have remained pending on record un-disposed, and then to complete the statement of P.W.13. Likewise, learned trial court would also complete the requirement of putting the other documents available on record to the accused for admission/denial, and if the accused deny them, then to give opportunity to the prosecution to prove them. After so completing the trial, the learned trial court shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. Since the accused persons are in custody since 2001, say practically 8 years, it is also directed that the learned trial court shall take up the matter like day to day, and then decide the matter most expeditiously. Record of the trial court be returned forthwith. The accused shall be produced before the learned trial court on 6.3.2009, on which date the learned trial court shall fix appropriate earliest convenient date for proceeding further with the matter. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/