S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. This revision is directed against order dated 5.7.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Shahjahanpur in S.T. No.213 of 2006 arising out of crime no.248 of 2005 under sections 376 I.P.C. and 3 (1) 12 S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Katra, District Shahjahanpur whereby the applications 35-Kha & 36-Kha under section 311 Cr. P.C. for recalling the witnesses P.W.2 & P.W.3 for further cross-examination were rejected. The applications under section 311 Cr. P.C. were moved on the ground that certain questions could not be asked from Gyan Devi (P.W.2) and Smt. Longshree (P.W.3). The detailed questions were also mentioned in the applications.
(2.) IMMEDIATELY thereafter, both the witnesses Gyan Devi and Longshree filed affidavits stating therein, that they had received injuries by a cycle. It was further mentioned that they were forced to give false statement on oath against the accused by Pooran Lal and Mahendra. Both the applications under section 311 Cr. P.C. were rejected by the Magistrate. Hence this revision. It is apparent from the record that earlier P.W.1 & P.W.2 were examined by the prosecution. They were thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, but subsequently the defence has won over both the witnesses and consequently both the witnesses have filed their affidavits in Court resiling from their earlier statements. Learned Magistrate has cited certain decisions of this Court wherein it was held that in non-compoundable cases, the witnesses should not be summoned for further cross-examination on the ground that parties have come to terms. Learned A.G.A. submitted that accused persons have now won over the witnesses and the applications for recalling of the witnesses for the purpose of further cross-examination have been moved simply to enable them to change their testimony and turn hostile.
(3.) I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Sessions Judge. The witnesses were earlier cross-examined by the defence at length. Now witnesses have been won over and their affidavits resiling from their earlier testimony have been filed and the applications for recalling of the witnesses for further cross-examination have been moved simply with a view to enable them to change their version for supporting the defence. Such a course of action is not permissible. In my considered view, the applications for recalling of witnesses for further cross-examination have been rightly rejected by the trial court. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed.;