news details |
|
|
| HC upholds CJM Kathua’s order | | | Early Times Reporter
Jammu | July 31
Justice Virender Singh of J&K High Court Jammu Wing, in a petition seeking quashment of order passed by CJM Kathua on April 8, 2008 permitting prosecution to reexamine complainant and the doctor, has held that this Court do not find any flaw in the approach adopted by the Trial Court as it was required in the interest of justice and further said that the duty of a Court is not only to do justice but also to ensure that the justice is being done.
These observations was made in a petition filed by Satish Kumar and Ors facing trial in a case before CJM Kathua for the offences u/s 326/341 RPC for allegedly causing hurt to one Vijay Kumar, seeking quashment of the order passed by the CJM Kathua on April 8, 2008, permitting prosecution to re-examine complainant Vijay Kumar and Dr. Jeet Raj Asst Surgeon District Hospital Kathua.
Their evidence was already recorded on February 22 and December 26, 2006. Justice Virender Singh while disagreeing with the submission made by counsel for the petitioners observed that legally there is no limitation on the power of Court arising from the stage to which the Trial may have reached for examination of a particular witness, but note of caution is that the examination of particular witness should be for a just decision of the case. It is also well settled and accepted principle that a court must discharge its statutory function whether discretionary or obligatory according to law in dispensing justice.
Court further observed that in the present case Court is of the considered view that re-examination of the witnesses would not prejudice the case of the accused in any manner. At the same time it is not in favour to either party by trial judge. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Vijay Kumar has received a grievous injury falling within the section 326 RPC and it is only the seat of injury on which there is some ambiguity. The Trial Court has rightly allowed the application, as it felt the necessity of clearing that doubt. This Court does not find any flaw in the approach adopted by the Trial Court as it was required in the interest of justice. With these observations Court dismissed the petition having no merit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
