[2025:RJ-JP:2413] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 182/2025 Chhotelal Son of Moolchand, resident of Village Nandri, Police Station Mahendipur Balaji, District Dausa (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Smt. Birma Devi Wife of Shri Babulal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Resident of Village Nandri, Police Station Mahendipur Balaji, District Dausa (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Meghraj Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/01/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sikrai, District Dausa in case No. 76/2021 by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the witness, PW7- Vanita, for the purpose of cross-examination has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the when the matter was posted for recording the evidence of PW7-Vanita i.e. on 30.11.2024, several questions were put to her in cross- examination but some of the questions were not allowed by the Court and there was hot altercation between the counsel and the Presiding Officer, hence, under these circumstances, counsel for the petitioner refused to cross-examine the aforesaid witness. [2025:RJ-JP:2413] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-182/2025] Counsel submits that cross-examination is a right of an accused to put his defence before the Court but in the instant case, the petitioner has been deprived from the aforesaid right, therefore, one last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to cross-examine the evidence by summoning the aforesaid witness in the witness- box. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner and his counsel to cross-examine the witness PW17-Vanita, but the counsel for the petitioner himself refused to cross-examine the aforesaid witness i.e. why the opportunity of cross-examination was closed, hence, under these circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that on the fateful day i.e. 30.11.2024, when the statements of the witness PW7-Vanita, were recorded before the Trial Court, certain questions were put by the counsel for the petitioner and the same were found to be doubtful and in the meantime, counsel for the petitioner became aggressive and there was hot altercation between the counsel and the Court but subsequently, the counsel for the petitioner appeared before the Trial Court and apologized for his conduct, hence his comments were removed on order-sheet. It appears that because of the above unwarranted incident during the proceedings and at the spur of moment, the counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:2413] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-182/2025] petitioner has refused to cross-examine the aforesaid witness. This Court finds no illegality in the order passed by Trial Court but looking on the interest of the petitioner who is an accused and facing trial for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also looking to fact that cross-examination is a statutory right of an accused and he cannot be deprived of the same for conducting a fair trial against him. 6. In view of the above, last opportunity is granted to the petitioner subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to cross- examine the witness PW7- Vanita. In case, the petitioner pays the aforesaid amount to the witness, she be recalled on the next date before the Trial Court for the purpose of her cross-examination. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to pay the above cost to the said witness and fails to cross-examine her on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/25