Manoj Ramchandra Mungekar v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.4067 OF 2018 Manoj Ramchandra Mungekar ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ...

Respondent .....

Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.V.Gavand, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent No.1/State.

....

CORAM : A.M.BADAR J.

DATED : 4 th MARCH 2020.

P.C. :

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/original accused. He argued that during the course of recording evidence of P.W.No.1, who happens to be the First Informant, the learned trial Court had asked several questions to fill in the lacuna in the prosecution case. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner/original accused, evidence of P.W.No.1 so far as it relates to the Court questions should be expunged.

1/3

I have considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the evidence of P.W.No.1/ First Informant. During the course of recording her cross-examination, the learned trial Court had asked three questions to the P.W.No.1. Those questions were in respect of name of police, who refused to register the FIR, identify of Gawade Madama and whether husband of the First Informant could fetch water subsequent to the incident. In the matter of Rajendraprasad Versus Narcotic Cell 1, the Honourable Apex Court has explained what amounts to lacuna in the prosecution case.

The Court questions so asked are permissible as per the provisions of Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Counsel for the accused was free to cross-examine the witness after putting those questions by the Court to the said witness. In fact the witness was cross-examined subsequent to asking of those questions. In this view of the matter, as the learned trial Court was justified for putting Court questions under the provisions of (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 110.

2/3

Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, no infirmity can be found in the course adopted by the learned trial Magistrate. The petition, as such, is devoid of merit and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

(A.M.BADAR, J.) Raju D.

Gaikwad by Raju D.

Gaikwad Date: 2020.03.04 17:42:22 +0530 3/3