MAHARAJA SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Cr.P.C.) challenges order dated 15.9.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad dismissing the application of the accused-petitioner to recall two prosecution witnesses, namely, Mahender Singh and Hari Dutt alias Hari Singh for their further cross-examination in case FIR No. 164 dated 18.7.1999 registered under Sections 304-B/34 IPC at Police Station Chhninsa. The application has been dismissed on the ground that their statements recorded on 14.12.2000 and 9.8.2001 respectively abundantly show that both the witnesses were cross-examined by the accused-petitioner and no objection has been ever raised for a period of about 2 years. The plea of the accused-petitioner that certain more questions remain to be confronted to those witnesses has been rejected by holding that it is merely a ploy to delay the proceedings.

(2.) MR . Viny Vohra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Section 311 Cr.P.C. the Court is clothed with wide power to recall any witness for the purpose of re-examination or further cross-examination. According to the learned counsel further cross-examination of the aforementioned witnesses has become essential in view of the fact that statement of one Attar Singh brother of deceased Bimla was recorded on 17.3.2003 who had contradicted the prosecution version and the facts mentioned in the aforementioned statement were not in their knowledge. Therefore, the power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should have been exercised by the learned trial Court.

(3.) A perusal of above sections shows that a discretion has been conferred on the Court to summon any person as a witness. However, an obligation is cast in case the Court records the conclusion that for just decision of the case, it is essential to recall, re-examine or cross-examine any other witness. The provisions has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India and another, 1991 Supp(1) SCC 271 : 1991(3) RCR(Crl.) 182 (SC). The following interpretation has been given by their Lordships to Section 311 Cr.P.C. :-