PALANISAMY Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-412
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on November 06,2019

PALANISAMY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karur in Crl.M.P.No.371 of 2019 in Spl.S.C.No.8 of 2018 dated 06.09.2019, thereby, the petition filed by the second respondent under Section 311 of Cr.P.C in Cr.M.P.No.371 of 2019 to re-call P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.13 and P.W.21. The second respondent has been charged for the offences under Sections 366 (A), 342, 506 (I), 375, 376 IPC , Section 6 , 7 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
(2.) There are totally 13 accused persons, in which, the second respondent arrayed as first accused. The prosecution already examined many witnesses and the same were closed on 25.03.2019 and all the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C on 12.04.2019. The second respondent also examined as D.W.1 on 05.07.2019. At the stage of arguments, the second respondent filed a petition to re-call P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.13 and P.W.21 under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court mechanically allowed the petition for the reason that the earlier counsel did not cross-examine P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.13 and P.W.21 properly. Therefore, the Trial Court given one more opportunity to the second respondent and allow the petition with cost of Rs.2,000/-. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ram Mehar and others reported in (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 762.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent is arrayed as first accused. The Trial Court rightly, allowed the petition and had given one more opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses to defend his case in a proper manner. Further, he submitted that the earlier counsel on record did not examine the prosecution witnesses in proper manner and as such, other counsel to conduct cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, he filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.