following: _
O R 1.': --- .3-
Heard on LA. 'I'1.:L3e::e ._M5.§ ? a
delay at 4'? days
?et}.t::i.n.
Wfifi Cfiiifi? Q? mmmmm MGR Cfifififi? QF KflRNfi"¥'fi%fl MGR C1
2. 'raking the grounds
made ou:;:-"" the met that
the .r:eapon<i'em;:t:':a:V are absent that
delay of _é,'Iu 1.3:: Ravisiotan Petition
V A' I I12 006 is accordingly
§
%&
fl
$3
3
§
g}
3%?
3
§
3
g
%~
Q
3
g The'.4 pue't it'ixcxner has challenged the order:
the agplication filed under Sectim
requesting ta recall Hi-3.6 for
V -- examination. K
§£,%E~% mmm fig KfifiN&"¥flK& MGM @%Q»"&§Ei"§" Q?
Prosecutor, seating for re--examinatiazu of
16: allow the apylicaticm filed by the
Prosecutot, seeking for 1:o~oxam.i.no.t:ir1 o£«~~.Pi€.-if L- ' '
16.
These Criminal Rovisicn
on for orders, this day tho"~:.t:cr;';'::i:'
£3
E
$
3
E
E
3':
*5"
K
E
3%.»:
Q
$
:7";
§
£3
1
£3?
4. The facts relevant for the purpose or
these revision patitiona are as uncier :
The respondents have been <:_3?7z.a.=.:.r.;a*-:3 1"1'«ée'63i?. «I{-:1V "' 4'
for the otfomes punishable &0ié_’_ ‘*iV’:ii§;’:t:_iA.’::3fi’e;:VV
493-3, 306 and anus) J.’/W 34*
and also Sections 3,
Pzrohibitian Act. It the
accused used to4_ ‘:;é.aLue_:’6 and
gm-.\
E
.55
a;
Q
x
Q
3
€
E
?;
§
E&
C:
I-“=3
%
3
Q
w
3
§
3
z
E
2
E
E9
§
W
k
3
3
L3
3
§
3
§
E
2
E
3;.
§
3
§’~ ._
Q ,,
x
if?
harassment to mney
and when ‘fiéilfillad she was
faxcsed ta temination or
pzegnam-xy. ‘of the charge, the
V f>’;I:V§g§<::ution wags rmzoxded and
W416 £64" Benakatti was examined. It
sfaéhifi * a L£ter the c-ompleticn or the
Ustha said Doctor the prcsacution
Qppiication undar Secti-oz}. 311 of
Qfequeating 12¢ reszall the said witness
that it is necessary ta raaall tha
witness 1501:: the puzpoae of eliciting the
$4
§
3
E?
x
%
E
§
gm
§
55%
M
@
Q
3
:3
-»,::x;§% §*”§§§€:$%”§ fififlfififlwfl” Q? Kfifimflfifiififla MEWH §I;Z%I}Mfl}’ Q? aammwamma Mifiéfl %;€wM§!M QM’ %fi.%Né%¥A?§& flfififirfi
7. It in the cozztention of the learned High
Court Government Pleads: and also the caunaa;_If .”
for the petitiomu: that the caa_e~_¢4:fi
proaecution against the accuaad wag’
deceased was subjected to
harasammt putting forth
and vénn the said dmnd fir.-%%% 3113
was famed to of
of this case
«’h;f.§£9:;:a the Trial Court by
” W-16, the Dactor was
examixia-;V%A v:§.fosecution and it is the
Counsel that the Trial Court
‘ an error in rejecting the
H though the matter is still at the
a:.ut”:a2tV1§.:_ the evidencve. It is aim: submitted
in case it the Doctor is not zecznlled
injustice will be caused to the
prosacmtian and that the accused is trying to
take disadvantage of the said position.
E-Eififi QWUR? %=€;é»?s.§3:§~§&’¥’iM{% Hififi Cfififififi” $3? wamwmmm HEGH cmuw Q? Kfl$flNA’E”&%& iwifififi {:6
WM fiifiififi? flfi Kfififlflfiflfifi Ewfiifiérfi fiflitfiflfi? W?’
8. The Trial Court: has rejactad th.grv. ‘f..p_T”‘«,
application 1110:! by the prasecutian !!cla3._:g:–:«..(‘:’1f;g” fl :”–
the qmuzzd that the yroaacution cmngt
that mistake canm.1.’tted and 1111 zip fiho’ 1’a»~’v”irxa_,A%%
by leading the evidence. ‘I’k1i§;: “‘a4;:p:6a;h
Trial Court some to he ;_9;:ror;a.e;:§§$f, ‘qt: :.:1i:%i–v11;cy,e1-3:
in case if the proaoctxztiérg airy
lacuna in that efzifiifiaqgo ‘igequast
cazmot: be jig} ta note
that it :?.–:5—. or the
was subj acted to
with a demand fax: meney
mt fulfil the demand she was
@ ‘1’:’s>.:;A:x:~.:§’v:;*. undergo medical termination of
A In support at the ease or the:
p§:c2afe.pfi§:ion, witnens was axaauined. It mpeaxs
” ‘TthatH from the records which are relevant to:
the purpose of prwinq the case were not
produced at the time when PW-16 was examined
and it is in such cixaumatancaa, as net:
§
3
§
3
€
SEE
3
g
Q
R.’
documents were available at the time of the
evidence. the pxoaecution appears to have
it by oversight withaut gatting tha a’§r.i,;d’.:’c.3:r::gc:»éa.A_t.”~ ‘%
at the stage of the v4″~@§a*idan:<':£::.'A.V"
proscmzticm desires tts
rectify the miatfake betvvtsfatiyd by any
stretch of ééauld amount ta
filling up' V.
9. I m of the
opifiog below emitted an
error. the application of the
there was a previous charge
‘A ;”<:-zfx haraament and canaequent death
fifiéaasad and the accused was czharga
afai1~=3e""*;a.;e¢1'f far the offences punishable under
2 'S-actions 306 and 304(3) at 1.9.6.
10. In as: far as the revision filed by the
State in concemsd, in my opinion, it is not
§”%§%§”‘E W?’ K%.’€fiNfi.’M’@Kfi MQQEM %m%€.M.§KE” £5? am..a<mmm~:.m E'!!€.;7rM £.;%7#%..§§£E" W?" %&5%§€N&EAKA fiififi €§§€"3** :5"
maintainablw, but anyhow the Criminal pstiticn
x4
?§
§
3
§
$2
3
if?
nof PW-16 an that aspect.)W9§§i6g1″‘«_[th§« T.
KEWE QQUW?’ fl? Kfifiwflfifafififi Hififi C€:3f5E§§t”f £3? WGM C@U%:7§i” i%§fi%;.§§MfiW&K& Hfififl Cfilfifi? Q? MRNRYRW 3-EEQH mam? QF §fl%W%$%?fia%.% Miflséfi C23
is tiled by the eowlainant against thefV.:Trder
dated 31.3.2005. Eat, an thy cmpxgigggg figs
“field the petition, the order
be set aside by qrantin:g M§he..v”:el$.AH§iE’«_uft;V¢ t§12.e»7 AV
pzosoautian.
11. In the circ;:msta:gc.§s,_ V3.-7h: paint:
in affinuative to pass the
follawing Qtdsx g”” A V ‘x
No.493.5f2005 ia
‘ ‘..”V§”i.’£fliered to be recallad
for in View at this
ordfim. _ *Cr:iz@ Revisicsn .’9et;i.t:ic>z1
. V. survive tax consideration
dismissed .
sd/=1 L
1UDGE
REV/BEES