(1) CRI. WP. 563.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 563 OF 2010 Rambhau S/o Narayan Akmal .. Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. B.S. Kudale, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the respondent-State Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the respondent no.4 Respondent no.3 deleted as per Court's order dt.25.8.2010 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 20TH OCTOBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 12.5.2010 rendered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar in Sessions Case no. 3 of 2006. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties and learned APP. 3. The learned APP points out that now recording of the evidence in the Sessions case has begun and the trial is underway. It appears that the (2) CRI. WP. 563.2010 petitioner had filed earlier Criminal Writ Petition no. 466 of 2006 seeking alteration of charge and further investigation. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that alternate and efficacious remedy was available to him. 4. The charge has been already altered by the Court of Sessions and charge under section 302 of the I.P.C. is framed against the accused. By the impugned part of the order, the learned Sessions Judge, discarded the prayer for re-investigation on the ground that the petitioner was granted alternate course and not both the choices were available to him. Another reason given by the learned Sessions Judge is that the alleged suicide of the petitioner’s son was reportedly the incident of 28.5.2005 and the dead body was exhumed from the burial ground for the purpose of investigation when the petitioner suspected foul play. Considering the delay, the request for re-investigation under section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was rejected. (3) CRI. WP. 563.2010 5. Mr. Kudale would submit that the re- investigation is necessary because hands of the deceased son of the petitioner, namely, Somnath were found tied when he was got removed from the place where the dead body was found. In this context, the statements of Gangadhar Akmal and Somnath Rawle are already placed on record. They are the prosecution witnesses cited in the chargesheet and, therefore, it is not necessary to record their statements again. It is for the Court of Sessions to examine the versions of the said witnesses and if so required, to allow their cross-examination/re-examination during the course of trial. The only contention of learned Advocate for the petitioner is that medical expert's opinion is necessary in order to find out the truth because death could not be suicidal. The learned Sessions Judge may, in the exercise of discretion under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seek opinion of any Medical Expert. The petitioner may move the Sessions Court through the learned Prosecutor for the purpose of examination of Medical Expert who is well versed in the subject of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. (4) CRI. WP. 563.2010 6. In this view of the matter, there appears no need to direct the Court of Sessions to do anything further. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp