Hans Raj v. Pawan Kumar
!"#"$% &'()*
% +,-./.
/.*-01 (2
!
"#$ % %
'
( )
$*$$+,-
&
(
(
(
&
(
(
/
(
) 01
0 (2 $#+$,3
$&'
!
/'
4
'
'5
5
&
,3#
2 (
4
,##,6
5
57
6
7
'
0&' (
)
!0
&
4
)
&
0
1 &
01
!
3,, % %
&&1 &&
,$,,$+,# !
&
3,,% %
&
$*$$+,- 8
&
&
&
0
&
(
:
0
) (
&
&&
&
& 0
( &1
0
1
)
(
01&
&
,,#,3-
&
) 0 0
00&
01
4
01
)
!0
1
&
(
)
(
&1
)
&&
:
&&
&
) 01
1
&
&
)
(0
! % "1."$3&4-'5 #& 6'7 1*
082.
&
9
1
(
(
&
(
;;
(
3,,% %
(
& In T.Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, AIR 2008 SC 2010, the Supreme Court has held as under:- "8. What should be the nature of evidence is not a matter which should be left only to the discretion of the Court. It is the accused who knows how to prove his defence. It is true that the court being the master of the proceedings must determine as to whether the application filed by the accused in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code is bona fide or not or whether thereby he intends to bring on record a relevant material. But ordinarily an accused should be allowed to approach the court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. If permitted to do so, steps therefor, however, must be taken within a limited time. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the accused should not be allowed to unnecessarily protracting the trial or summon witnesses whose evidence would not be at all
8 relevant."
!
"
& 1
&
!
3,,% % &1&&
&(
(
) 1
&
(
& (
!
3,, % %
01 &
%
& 1
!
3,,
0
&
(
0AVNEESH JHINGAN 2 12th July, 2022
< ( =