Charges have been framed under the aforesaid Sections against the accused persons.
Statements of 28 witnesses have been recorded in the trial.
Learned companynsel for the appellant, urged that PW4 and PW5 were examined in the Court on different dates in the months of November and December 2010 and in March 2011.
PWs 4 and 5 filed applications before the trial companyrt for further examination on 27.2.2012 and 26.3.2012 respectively.
P.C. to bring on record the best possible evidence to meet the ends of justice.
A charge sheet No.22 of 2009 dated 20.3.2009 was presented under Sections 302, 201, 342, 120 B IPC against respondent Nos.1 and 2 and three others.
Keeping this principle in mind the High Court has allowed the petition.
In the applications, the witnesses have stated that respondent Nos.1 and 2 had numberrole in the incident.
Out of total 35 witnesses, 28 witnesses have already been examined and they were cross examined at length.
During police investigation and examination companyducted by the prosecution, they had supported the prosecution story.
Prahlad Jat and Mahavir, the two accused persons, moved the petition before the High Court for quashing the said order and the High Court has allowed the applications of PW4 and PW5.
P.C. for re recording their statements on the ground that the previous statements were made under the influence of the police.
The statements of Sawarmal and Chandri have been recorded as PW4 and PW5 respectively.
The appellant is the paternal brother of the deceased and is one of the prosecution witnesses.
Thereafter, both moved applications before the Sessions Judge under Section 311 of Cr.
The witnesses were also cross examined at length and it cannot be said that they were in any kind of pressure and that the applications were filed with a view to favour the accused persons.
During the police investigation and examination companyducted by the prosecution, wherein they have supported prosecution story, it cannot be said that at such time, the witnesses were under any pressure.
The evidence of PW4 and PW5 was recorded on different dates in the months of November and December 2010 and in March 2011.
The Sessions Judge by the order dated 24.4.2012, dismissed the applications observing that the 28 witnesses had already been examined in the case so far.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 22.5.2012 in B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1679 of 2012, whereby the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench has allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK MANSUKHANI Date 2017.09.18 145526 IST Criminal Procedure, 1908 and has set aside the order dated Reason 24.04.2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track , Sikar.
