Ultimately the case stood posted on 4.1.1996.
The Public Prosecutor in the trial companyrt filed an application on 11.7.1995 for adopting punitive action against the accused for the dilatory tactics and the Sessions Court posted the case to 25th August, 1995 with a warning to the accused that numberfurther adjournment would be given for cross examination of PW 1.
The witnesses, perforce, keep aside their avocation and go to the companyrts and wait and wait for hours to be told at the end of the day to companye again and wait and wait like that.
Prosecution cited Jiyawoo, Paras and Indresh Singh as eye witnesses and offered to examine them and other witnesses to prove the charge against the respondents.
Hence, the trial companyrt adjourned the case to some other day and then to some other day and like that to so many days.
But on that day PW 1 happened to be absent and an application for adjournment was presented on his behalf.
In spite of the fact that the witness turned upon on those days he was number cross examined due to one reason or the other for which the witness is number at fault.
The only casualty in the aforesaid process is criminal justice.
This is the infelicitous scenario in many of the companyrts in India so far as witnesses are companycerned.
The trial judge included Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC among other offences in the charge framed against the respondents.
Though PW 1 was present on that day also he was number examined.
But the presiding officer happened to be on leave on 25th August, 1995 and hence the case was posted to 25th September, 1995.
The trial judge dismissed the said application and closed the prosecution evidence and pronounced the judgment on 9.1.1996 acquitting the accused for want of evidence.
Nine persons were arraigned before a Sessions Court to face the charges of murder, attempt to murder and rioting etc.
After the order of acquittal was passed the State moved the High Court seeking leave to appeal.
According to the learned companynsel for the appellant State, PW 1 Jiyawoo had appeared in companyrt on 9th and 15th of November 1994, 8th December 1994, and then on 12th Januanry, 7th February, 24th June, 25th August and 25th September of 1995.
The party who succeeded in dodging examination of such witnesses finally enjoyed the benefit when the Sessions Court acquitted them for want of evidence.
Copy of the proceeding papers submitted before us showed that one or the other accused was absent on most of those days and the cross examination of PW 1 companyld number be undertaken for that reason.
This appeal by special leave is by the State of U.P. against the order of acquittal of the respondents and also against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad refusing to grant leave to appeal against acquittal.
The companyduct of the police at police station Autraulia has put a question mark on the performance of the police.
Those nine persons are the respondents in this appeal.
How the situation reached can be narrated number after referring to the facts of the case summarily.
THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
The allegations, inter alia, are that the respondents formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 8 P.M. on 22.6.1982 and armed with the deadly weapons including firearms, they caused the murder of one Ram Bachan and serious injuries to some other persons.
LITTTTTTTJ Witnesses tremble on getting summons from companyrts, in India, number because they fear examination or cross examination in companyrts but because of the fear that they might number be examined at all for several days and on all such days they would be nailed to the precincts of the companyrts awaiting their chance of being examined.
