Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - (1.) The petitioner/accused is aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2017 whereby the application of the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C for recall of CW-1 i.e. Meena Tyagi (the complainant) and CW-2 Nutan Tyagi (husband of the complainant) for further cross examination has been rejected.
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that CW-2 was not cited as a witness, however, subsequently, his testimony was recorded. It is further contended that CW-2 in his testimony has made statements which are at variance to the statement made by CW-1 and as such there is necessary to recall CW-1 for cross-examination.
(3.) By the impugned order, the Trial Court had declined to accede to the prayer on the ground that the petitioner had sufficient time to cross examine the witnesses and to lead his evidence. It was noticed that the petitioner has filed the said application only when the final arguments were being heard. When the Respondent pointed out to the fallacy in the defence of the petitioner, the subject application was filed.;