ABID @ GUDDU Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Abid @ Guddu
State of Uttarakhand and another
Click here to view full judgement.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. -
(1.) By means of this petition, a prayer has been advanced to recall PW3 Farzana under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 2010. Ms. Farzana was cross examined on 12.11.2011 in the trial and since then, almost nine months have further elapsed, so this Court can anticipate that few more witnesses might have been examined by now. But at some later stage an application was moved on behalf of accused Abid to re-summon PW3 Farzana under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the reason that on few points she has still not been examined and the failure to question her at those points would affect the adjudication. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee has rejected such application on the ground that Ms. Farzana was cross examined, in detail, at the time when she admitted in the court.
(2.) Section 311 Cr.P.C. envisages that the court can recall witness, if his evidence appears to be essential, for just decision of the case and also with a view to sub serve the cause of justice.
(3.) This Court has also earlier laid down a law in the case of Trilochan Singh & others v. State of Uttaranchal reported in 2002 (2) ELC 981 that there is no justification to recall the witnesses, merely on the asking that they are not satisfied with earlier statements recorded in the trial; because if it is done so there will be no logical end of the examination of the same witnesses. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mir Mohd. Omar v. State of W.B. reported in 1989 A. Cr. R. 693 SC has categorically held that permission cannot be accorded to recall the witness to resile from his statement in the name of asking few more questions, so this application has rightly been rejected by the court below.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.