Laxmi Devi VS State of U. P.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Revisionists:Mr. Abhay Raj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: AGA.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 311—Petitioners facing trial under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC failed to cross-examine three prosecution witnesses—Their application to reads witnesses for cross-examination was dismissed for reasons that even on adjourned date cross-examination was not conducted—Revision—Though conduct of petitioners was reprehensible but closing opportunity for cross-examination was not a solution—Bail could have been recalled if it was found being misused—Witnesses deserved to be recalled for their cross-examination.
       Held: The application for recall of the witnesses was rejected by the trial court on the ground that PW1 was examined on 13.7.2007, but counsel for the defence moved adjournment application. Even on adjourned date, cross-examination was not conducted and opportunity was closed. Similarly, PW2 was examined-in-chief on 26.9.2007, but he was also not cross-examined despite sufficient opportunity .The opportunity for cross- examination of PW6 has not yet been closed, but PW8 was also not cross-examined despite sufficient opportunity?
       From the impugned order, it transpires that the conduct of the revisionists has been most reprehensible during the trial. Despite opportunities being given, they failed to avail the same and sought adjournments after adjournments. Closing the opportunity for cross-examination is not a solution of this problem. If the accused were misusing the liberty of bail and were not cooperating in the due progress of the case and failed to cross-examine the witnesses despite sufficient opportunity, it would have been proper to cancel their bail instead of closing the opportunity of cross-examination. Closing the opportunity for cross-examination can not be justified, as no one should be condemned unheard. In my considered opinion, one more opportunity should be granted to the revisionist to cross-examine PW1 , PW2, PW6 & PW8 subject to their depositing the amount of cost imposed by the trial court from time to time. (Paras 3 & 4)