IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 16 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.04.2010 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Virender Verma. ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. (Oral) The petitioner was initially represented by Sh. Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Later on counsel Mr. Vinay Thakur and Mr. T.R. Chandel, Advocates withdrew from the case. The petitioner was summoned to this Court. He expressed his desire to engage Mr. Ajay Kochar, Advocate to represent his case. Accordingly, Mr. Ajay Kochar, Advocate consented to assist this Court. 2. The petitioner had moved an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Trial Court praying for permission for further cross-examination of the star witness of the prosecution PW-3 Sh. Amit Verma. The application states that the petitioner could not instruct his counsel properly in the matter and there are some questions which are 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 required to be put to Sh. Amit Verma, which would exonerate the petitioner from his involvement in offences under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Court is judgmental in considering the reasons advanced by the petitioner for permission to cross-examine the witness. Two reasons have been advanced:- Firstly, that the statement of the petitioner is already recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in that he has asked for permission to lead evidence in defence. Secondly, the Court presumes by surmises that Sh. Amit Verma, PW-3 would have no occasion to make a statement to falsely implicate the accused. How and under what circumstances this conclusion is reached, is not clear from the record. This would be a matter of evidence and not a judgment prior to the cross-examination of the witness. The Court also lost sight of the fact that the petitioner is in jail and obviously it would difficult to him to instruct his counsel in the case. The application has been dealt with in a slipshod and haphazard manner. The Court below should have to keep it mind that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and if he is convicted, it would result serious repercussion on his life and personal liberty. Accordingly, a direction is issued that the Trial Court shall summon Sh. Amit Verma and permit his further cross- examination before allowing the petitioner to lead his evidence in defence. 4. The Court places on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by Sh. Ajay Kocher, Advocate, who is appearing as amicus curie. 5. The record of the learned Court below be sent back immediately. April 27, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), (KRS) Judge