LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-460

PICHAIKKARAN Vs. THE STATE

Decided On June 12, 2015
Pichaikkaran Appellant
V/S
THE STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed seeking for a direction to eschew the evidence of PW 1 to PW 8 regarding S.C. No. 98 of 2011 and to direct the learned Mahila Judge, Thiruvannamalai to take chief examination of PW 1 to PW 8 afresh. The petitioner is an accused in S.C. No. 98 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the case was posed for trial on 11.11.2013 and on that date, the Legal Aid appointed counsel for him was present and earlier to that, the petitioner had discussion with the counsel appointed by the Legal Aid, and there was misunderstanding between him and legal aid counsel. When the case was called on 11.11.2013, the petitioner wanted to engage some other counsel and sought time. However, the trial Court did not grant time for engaging another counsel for the petitioner and examined PW 1 and marked Ex. P1 and adjourned to next date viz., 12.11.2013 and on that date also, the petitioner requested time to engage a new counsel and that was not considered by the trial Judge and the trial judge examined PW 2 to PW 8 and marked Exs. No. 1 to 4 and adjourned the matter to 28.11.2013. Therefore, he submitted that when the accused has been charged for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the accused must have been given an opportunity to conduct the case and when the accused sought for time to engage a counsel to defend his case, the trial Court ought to have given time and ought not to have proceeded with the examination of P.Ws. 1 to 8 causing prejudice to the petitioner and the petitioner is denied fair trial and therefore, the evidence recorded from P.W. 1 to P.W. 8 on 11.11.2013 and 12.11.2013 ought to be eschewed and they may be permitted to be examined afresh. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in : 2013 (6) CTC 320 (S. Yuvaraj Vs. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Gobichettypalayam) and : 2014 (6) CTC 653 (S. Yuvaraj Vs. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Gobichettypalayam) in support of his contention. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the right of observing demeanor of the witnesses during the Chief -examination was denied to the petitioner and therefore, the petition has to be allowed.

(3.) THE following diary extract will make the matter clear.