1 2025:CGHC:22287 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1705 of 2025 Mukesh Thakur, S/o Nandkeshwar, aged about 35 Years, R/o Dandagaon, P.S. Udaipur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner/Complainant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Secretary, Department of Home Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhavan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh) 2 - The Station House Officer, Police Station Udaipur, District Surajpur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Sudama Sharma, S/o Late Ram Pati, R/o Ram Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) (Accused Person) 4 - Sushil Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Rampati, R/o Ram Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) (Accused Person) 5 - Neeraj Kumar @ Pappu, S/o Sukhdev Sharma, aged about 34 Years, R/o Ram Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) (Accused Person) 6 - Vivek Kumar, S/o Sudama Sharma, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ram Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) (Accused Person) 7 - Balram Thakur, S/o Late Meejhan Thakur, aged about 55 Years, R/o District Aaurangabad Bihar ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For State : Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2025.05.22 15:11:25 +0530 2 22/05/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant in the case, against the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Ambikapur, District Surguja, C.G. in Sessions Case No.110/2019, whereby right to lead evidence of the prosecution witnesses have been forfeited and the case is fixed for recording the accused statement. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the present respondent Nos.3 to 7 are the accused persons in Sessions Trial No.110/2019 which is arising out of the complaint lodged by the present petitioner for which the offence under Sections 147, 294, 506 Part-II, 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) has been registered and they have been charge-sheeted. 4. The learned trial Court has framed charges for the aforesaid offences and proceeding of the case is going on. Earlier the petitioner had filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1076/2025 before this Court challenging the order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application under Section 348 read with Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, ‘BNSS’) and closing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which was came up for hearing on 26.03.2025 before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1076/2025 filed by the petitioner was disposed of directing the learned trial Court for recording of the evidence of injured- Nandkeshwar Thakur through Video Conferencing with the help of concerned DLSA. After passing of the order dated 26.03.2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition 3 No.1076/2025, the case was fixed before the learned trial Court for recording of the evidence of injured- Nandkeshwar Thakur through Video Conferencing on 03.05.2025, however, on that day, an application (Annexure P-2) has been filed by the petitioner for adjournment of the case on the ground that the injured witness- Nandkeshwar Thakur is suffering from loose motion and vomiting. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the repeated adjournments granted to the prosecution for producing their witnesses, the right to lead evidence of prosecution witnesses has been forfeited and the case was fixed for recording of the statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., which is under challenge in the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 03.05.2025, the petitioner was suffering from loose motion and vomiting, for which, he has moved an application for adjournment of the proceeding of the case supported by the medical prescription, therefore, instead of forfeiting the right to lead evidence of the prosecution and to examine the complainant as witness, an opportunity should have been granted to the complainant/injured witness to lead his evidence. The recording of evidence of the injured witness is necessary as he is the victim of the offence; he is suffering from Paralysis and his evidence is to be recorded through Video Conferencing; looking to his age and health condition, he could not appear through Video Conferencing on the date fixed by the learned trial Court, therefore, one more opportunity may be granted to him to record his evidence. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State does not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Natasha Singh vs CBI (State) reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3554 has held in para 9 as under:- “Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure, and it is the duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of the society, and therefore, fair trial includes the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional, as well as a human right.” 9. In the present case, witness- Nandkeshwar Thakur is the victim of the offence and the present petitioner is the son of the victim. From the documents annexed with the petition with respect to the medical prescription of the victim, it reflects that the victim is aged about 62 years and was suffering from loose motion and vomiting on 03.05.2025. From the order passed in CRMP No.1076/2025 dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it also reflects that the victim is suffering from paralysis and for that reason, he was permitted to appear through video conferencing for recording of his evidence. On 03.05.2025, when the application has been made by the petitioner for adjournment of the proceeding of the case on the ground that victim- Nandkeshwar Thakur is suffering from ailment, the learned trial Court instead of forfeiting the right to lead evidence of the prosecution witnesses, should have granted one more opportunity to the victim to record his evidence. 10. Be that as it may, this Court deem it fit to grant one more opportunity to record the evidence of the victim- Nandkeshwar Thakur in the interest of justice. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.05.2025 forfeiting 5 the right of the prosecution to record the evidence of victim- Nandkeshwar Thakur is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to fix a date for recording the evidence of victim- Nandkeshwar Thakur through Video Conferencing. It is also directed that the prosecution shall not sought any adjournment at any ground whatsoever. It is further clarified that only one opportunity shall be granted to the prosecution/victim-Nandkeshwar Thakur to record his evidence through Video Conferencing, failing which, the learned trial Court is at liberty to proceed with the case in accordance with law. 11.With this observation, the present petition is finally disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) JUDGE Akhilesh