Crl.Rev. No.70 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Rev. No.70 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.1.2009 Anil .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Harish Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order dated 17.9.2008, passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, directing the examination of Ms. Pooja daughter of the deceased as a prosecution witness. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ms.Pooja is not referred to as a witness in the FIR, or in the statement recorded during the trial. It is further submitted that as Ms.Pooja is a minor, the trial Court was required to record its satisfaction, as to her ability to depose with respect to the facts of the case. As the learned trial Court has failed to record any satisfaction, with respect to the ability of the child witness to depose, the impugned order be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and express my inability to accept the present petition or interfere with the order dated Crl.Rev. No.70 of 2009 2 17.9.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The murder of one Raj Kumar led to the registration of an FIR and the initiation of a trial. During the trial, the prosecution cited Ms. Pooja minor daughter of the deceased as a witness. Pursuant to objections raised by the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 5.9.2007 disallowed the deposition of Ms.Pooja by holding that the complainant has not deposed that Ms. Pooja has witnessed the occurrence. This order came to be challenged before this Court in Crl.Rev.No.1713 of 2007 Ramesh Kumar V. State of Haryana. Vide order of this Court dated 4.10.2007, the revision was accepted, the above order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Sessions Judge, Rohtak, to pass an order after satisfying himself, whether the child is in a position to depose about the facts of the case. In compliance with the above order, the learned Sessions Judge, summoned Ms.Pooja, addressed questions to her and after considering her response held that she is sufficiently intelligent, understands the difference between right and wrong and may, therefore, be able to depose as to the facts of the case. The operative part of the impugned order reads as follows :- “Above being the position, possibility of presence of Ms.Pooja with her parents on 6.6.2006, that is, the date of occurrence cannot be ruled. Ms.Pooja is present in the Court today. I have put certain questions to her. In my opinion, Ms.Pooja is intelligent enough and well understands the difference between right and wrong. She is able to answer the questions rationally. I am, therefore, of the view that Ms.Pooja may be in a position to depose about the facts of the case.” Crl.Rev. No.70 of 2009 3 I find no reason, whether in fact or in law to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. The learned trial Court has examined the child witness, put questions to her and has thereafter proceeded to record satisfaction, as to the ability of the child witness to depose with respect to the facts of the case. The significance of her deposition to the trial, cannot be over stated. The petitioner's contention that the trial Court has not recorded its satisfaction, is factually incorrect. In view of what has been stated herein above, as the discretion exercised by the trial Court is neither arbitrary nor perverse, the present petition is dismissed. 20.1.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE