K.S.KUMARAN, J. - (1.) THE accused who stands charged under Section 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code and facing trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala, vide FIR No. 78 dated 8.6.1993, Police Station Kotwali, Patiala, has come forward with this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C., to set aside the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge dismissing his application to recall PW4 Ms. Sunita before him for further cross-examination.
(2.) THE petitioner alleged that the prosecutrix whom he is said to have kidnapped and ravished, has written a letter to him stating that she had given the evidence before the Sessions Judge under the threat of police and that the petitioner herein had not committed the offence, but, she was kidnapped by another person and, therefore, wanted the prosecutrix (PW4) to be recalled for further cross-examination and confronted with this letter. It was opposed by the State, and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the case of both sides held that the letter is irrelevant and that it was not necessary to recall PW4 for further evidence. Accordingly, he dismissed the application. Even before this Court, the state has filed a reply opposing the application. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions one rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Sukkhan v. State of U.P., 1988 (1) Crimes 245 and the other rendered by the High Court of Delhi in State (Delhi Admn.) v. Ramesh alias Ramesh Kumar, 1990(1) C.C. Cases 44 (HC) where, under similar circumstances, the Allahabad High Court and the Delhi High Court had taken the view that the witness can be recalled and examined. The only difference in those cases is that after the examination of a witness, the witness concerned had filed an affidavit indicating that the evidence already given was not the truth. In the case on hand, it is a letter whereby the prosecutrix (PW4) is alleged to have written that she had not been kidnapped by the petitioner herein but by some other person. In view of the provisions of section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and these two decisions cited above, I find that this is a fit case wherein the interest of justice PW4 should be ordered to be recalled and examined and confronted with the letter alleged to have been written by her.
(3.) THE result is that the petition is allowed, setting aside the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 11.5.1994 declining to recall the witness. The application filed by the petitioner herein before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge under Section 311, Cr.P.C. will stand allowed as prayed for. Petition allowed.;