- (1.) This common order shall dispose of both the aforesaid two petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.PC as they emerge out of the criminal trial in case FIR No.184 dated 18.07.2012 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307, 436, 323, 332, 353, 427, 114 of Indian Penal Code registered with Police Station Manesar, District Gurgaon. In CRM-M No.482 of 2016 titled as Ram Mehar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 12 accused persons have laid challenge to the order dated 16.12.2015 Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon-trial Court whereby their application under Section 311 read with Section 231(2) Cr.PC for recalling of the 08 named witnesses has been declined. In CRM-M No.484 of 2016 titled as Krishan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana, 09 accused have laid challenge to the order dated 16.12.2015 Annexure P-1 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon-trial Court whereby their application under Section 311 read with Section 231(2) Cr.PC for recalling of the 04 named witnesses has been declined.
(2.) The admitted facts are that the accused-petitioners (in both the petitions) were nominated as accused in aforesaid FIR No.184 dated 18.07.2012 on account of occurrence on 18.07.2012 in the premises of the Maruti Suzuki plant at Manesar resulting into injuries to the official of the company and death of one Mr. Avnish Dev, General Manager. The petitioners (in both the petitions) were arrested in the month of July/August 2012. The investigating agency on conclusion of the investigations filed a challan dated 08.10.2012 against 148 accused persons including the petitioners (in both the petitions). The charges were framed on 22.08.2013, inter alia, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The evidence of the prosecution commenced on 21.01.2014 and was concluded on 02.05.2015. When the case was at the stage of recording of defence evidence the application dated 30.11.2015 (P-4) under Section 311 read with Section 231 (2) Cr.PC was instituted on behalf of the 12 accused persons-petitioners (in CRM-M No.482 of 2016) seeking recalling of the eight prosecution witnesses out of total 102 examined witnesses, namely PW-1 Vikram Verma, PW-2 Vikram Kazanchi, PW-3 Pradeep Kumar Roy, PW-5 Birendra Prasad, PW-8 Salil Bihari Lal, PW-10 Vikram Sarin, PW-29 Deepak Anand, PW-99 IO DSP Om Parkash for further cross examination. Another separate application dated 30.11.2015 (P-4) was moved by the petitioners (in CRM-M No.484 of 2016) seeking recalling of the four prosecution witnesses out of total 102 examined witnesses, namely PW-7 Shobit Mittal, PW-14 Rajeev Kaul, PW-22 Sri Niwasan and PW-28 Umakanta T.S., for further cross examination. The common ground seeking recalling was that Sh. R.S. Hooda, Advocate, who was the leading defence counsel was critically ill during the trial and due to inadvertence, certain important questions, suggestions with respect to the individual roles and allegations against the respective petitioners, the injuries sustained by the witnesses, as well as the alleged weapons of offence used, had not been put to the said witnesses. It was averred that a fresh team of senior lawyers had been engaged at the final stage thus such inadvertent errors were discovered and needed to be rectified in order to have a meaningful defence and a fair trial. The said stand was contested by the prosecution and the complainant. Their stand was that the aforesaid witnesses had been thoroughly cross examined at length and change of counsel would not constitute a valid basis for seeking recalling of such witnesses.
(3.) Learned trial Court vide two separate impugned orders both dated 16.11.2015 (P-1 in both the petitions) dismissed the respective applications. The reasons for declining the recalling of said witnesses are as under:- (i) that the application has been moved at a very belated stage, when the witnesses has already been examined and the prosecution evidence concluded on 2.3.2015 and even defence evidence having been concluded in part. (ii) It has been observed that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the trial to be concluded expeditiously and, therefore, it is suggestively inferred, though not recorded, that such a recourse would delay the trial in violation of the directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (iii) that the ground of engaging of new lawyers in place of previous counsel, who could not properly conduct the cross examination has been found to be inadequate. (iv) that the applicants/accused have not explained as to what were the left out questions which were so crucial to the defence of the accused-petitioners.;