B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an applicati6n filed by the Prosecution under Section 482 O. P. C. to set aside the order dated 23. 7. 98 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam in S. C. No. 308 of 1995 refusing to permit the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine P. W. 6.

( 2 ) IT appears that PW6 was examined in chief on 16-7-1998 and he could not be cross-examined by the defence inasmuch as the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused expressed his inability to cross-examine the witness on the ground that the accused requested him not to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge asked the accused to cross-examine the witness personally. Accused represented that they want to engage senior advocate and they cannot cross-examine the witness. On this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded that since the request of the accused was already refused on 13-7-1998, they have no cross-examination. Thereafter, the respondents-accused filed an application in Crl. M. P. No. 478 of 1998 to cross-examine PW6 and accordingly PW6 was summoned for cross-examination on behalf of A1 to A10. During the course of the cross-examination, PW6, inter alia, stated that "i heard that the persons travelled in the jeep discussed to whom they have to refer as accused. But, I do not know the details. We went to Machilipatnam from Ghantasala via Ramanagaram. " It may be stated here that PW6 is the person who is alleged to have driven the vehicle and carried the injured including the deceased to Ghantasala Police Station and from there to General Hospital, Machilipatnam in Jeep bearing No. APK 6908. It is at this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the trial Court requested the Court to permit him to cross-examine the witness after declaring the witness hostile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge then requested the Addl. P. P. to show the circumstances for treating the witness as hostile. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the above quoted two sentences elided in the cross-examination of PW6 are against the prosecution and those sentences would completely destroy the prosecution case and for that reason, he wanted to cross-examine the witness after declaring him as hostile. It is also contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor before the Court below that those two sentences and also the sentence to the effect that there were police at Kodali centre controlling the traffic due to the Pushkarams would completely destroy the prosecution case and under those circumstances, the witness is required to be declared as hostile and be subjected to cross-examination by the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after an elaborate consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that no permission need be granted to declare the witness as hostile and permit the prosecution to cross-examine him, merely because a witness in an un-guarded moment speaks truth which may not suit the prosecution or support its case. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accordingly held that P. W. 6 in an un-guarded moment gave true version as to what had transpired in the jeep and also about the police controlling the traffic at Kodali centre due to Pushkarams. The learned Judge further held that may be those two sentences are not relishable to the prosecution, but the witness cannot be allowed to be cross-examined by the prosecution. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that the Court before permitting a party to cross-examine its own witness must be satisfied that the evidence of that witness in the cross-examination is quite contra to the material statement made by him earlier or that his statement is contra to a material fact which is already on record. The learned Judge finally came to the conclusion that neither of the circumstances appear from the evidence of P. W. 6 and accordingly refused permission to cross-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document