( 1 ) THIS revision case is filed by A. 3 in Sessions Case No. 338 of 2003 pending before the V Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge-cum-Mahila Court Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 384 read with Section 34 IPC.

( 2 ) IN this case trial commenced and p. Ws. 1 to 14 were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The Counsel engaged by the petitioner remained absent and did not cross-examine the witnesses. There was no advocate appearing for A. 1. Therefore, the lower Court recorded the cross-examination of A. 1 and the petitioner as nil. The revision petitioner filed an application under Section 311 Cr. P. C. praying to recall the witnesses for cross-examination. But, the lower Court rejected the petition on the following grounds:. . . A. 1 did not show any interest to cross examine the witnesses. Despite his Counsel giving up the Memo of Appearance on the first day itself, A. 1 did not choose to engage another Counsel and he came with this petition through another Counsel after examination of almost all the prosecution witnesses. The accused has been playing hide and seek game to gain time to cause inconvenience to the prosecution. He did not engage a Counsel with the said ulterior motive. It is not the case of the accused that he has no means to engage a Counsel. When once the witness is examined-in-Chief, it is the duty of the accused to cross- examine the witnesses on the same day, but not on the dates of his choice. He cannot expect the Court to act according to the dates of his choice. He cannot expect the Court to act according to his whims and fancies. The defence was given enough opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, but they did not utilize the opportunity. Therefore, it is not fair and proper to recall the witnesses under the criminal jurisprudence.

( 3 ) IN the light of the above order of the lower Court, the point for consideration is: whether the petitioner is entitled for an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses? point :

( 4 ) SECTION 137 of the Indian Evidence act deals with the Examination-in-Chief, cross-examination and Re-examination of the witnesses. It reads as follows: section 137. Examination-in-chief : The examination of a witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in- chief. Cross-examination : The examination of a witness, by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. Re-examination : The examination of a witness, subsequent to the cross-examination by the party who called him shall be called his re-examination.

( 5 ) THE object of the Chief-examination is to elicit from the witness all the facts or such of them as he can testify in order to prove the case of the party calling him.

( 6 ) SECTION 138 of the Evidence Act speaks about the order of examinations. Section 138 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: section 138 : Order of examinations : witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross- examined then (if the party calling him so desires) re-examined. The examination and cross-examination must relate relevant facts, but the cross- examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief. Direction of re-examination : The re- examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross- examination; and, if new matter is; by permission of the Court introduced in reexamination the adverse party may further cross-examination upon that matter.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to Section 138 of the evidence Act the Cross-examination of every witness should follow his Examination-in- chief.

( 8 ) THE accused is not entitled as of right for postponement of cross-examination. However, the Court may grant such postponement on reasonable grounds i. e. , where the accused was undefended or the Counsel appointed to defend him had no instructions till that date. The cross examination can be deferred to the next day. But, in the trial Courts it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document