IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Jay Sengupta, J.
Aizul Laskar @ Azizul Laskar And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRR No. 730 of 2022
Decided On : 01-04-2022
Recalling of Witness - Fair Trial - The court set aside the closure of evidence of PW 39 and directed the trial court to grant a single day's opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine PW 39, regardless of the correction of evidence, in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are the accused in the case, sought to recall PW 39 for cross-examination, stating that the evidence of PW 39 needed correction before further cross-examination could proceed. The trial court had rejected the prayer for recalling and closed the evidence of PW 39.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had a right to cross-examine the witness, PW 39, and that it was an integral part of their right to a fair trial. In the interest of justice, the court set aside the closure of evidence of PW 39 and directed the trial court to grant a single day's opportunity for cross-examination.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners should be allowed to recall PW 39 for cross-examination, considering the pending correction of evidence and the right to a fair trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the petitioners' right to cross-examine the witness and the need for a fair trial, setting aside the closure of evidence and granting an opportunity for cross-examination.
Final Decision: The court directed the trial court to grant a single day's opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine PW 39, regardless of the correction of evidence, and proceed with the trial expeditiously thereafter.
JUDGMENT
Jay Sengupta, J. - This is an application challenging an order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Seladah, North 24-Parganas, thereby rejecting the petition filed by the accused petitioner under Section 311 of the Code for recalling of PW39 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 01(08) of 2012. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. The petitioners are the accused in this case. During trial, the petitioners had prayed for correction of evidence of PW39. It was further submitted before the learned trial court that unless that happened, the prosecution could not further cross-examine PW39. In the meantime, certain other issues also cropped up. The petitioners first preferred a revisional application before this Court being CRR No. 255 of 2021 with the prayer that the two applications filed by the petitioners, one for correction of the evidence of PW 39 and the other for recalling of PW 38 should be disposed of. By an order dated 23.08.2021 passed in the said revision, the application was allowed and the learned trial court was directed to dispose of the two applications. When the matter went before the learned trial court, the learned trial court rejected the prayer for recalling and was of the view that the issue of correction could be taken up at the stage of arguments. Thereafter, a second revisional application filed by the petitioners being CRR No. 2440 of 2021 seeking recalling of PW 38 for cross-examination. By an order dated 22.12.2021, the said prayer was allowed. although, the PW 39 was cross-examined on a few occasions, the same could not be concluded and it was categorically submitted on behalf of the defence that unless the correction was effected, the cross-examination of the defence would not be in a position to cross-examine PW 39. Yet, the evidence was closed at that stage by the learned trial court. a date has been fixed for argument on 2nd april, 2022. In the interest of justice, the petitioner should be allowed at least a single days' opportunity to cross-examine the witness namely, P.W.39. The petitioners undertake to cross-examine the PW 39 regardless of whether the evidence of PW 39 recorded thus far is corrected or not.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits as follows. First, the defence had ample opportunity to cross-examine the witness namely, PW 39. In fact, cross-examination was done on the number of occasions. Secondly, in the subsequent revisional applications the petitioners had adequate opportunity to take up the point regarding recalling of PW 39. But, the same was not done. It was only after an order was passed for recalling PW 38 that the petitioners prayed for recalling of PW 39.
I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the State and have perused the revision petition.
It is true that the petitioners had moved two revisional applications before this Court and at least in the second revisional application, the issue of recalling of PW 39 could have been taken up by the petitioners. at the same time it is also a fact that the defence had clearly stated that it could cross-examine PW 39 only after the evidence of PW 39 was corrected. That issue remained pending.
Whether the petitioners have waited all this long to bide some more time by not taking up the issue of recalling of PW 39 in the second revision or not, they nevertheless have a very important right to cross-examine the witness, namely, PW 39. It is an integral part of their right to a fair trial.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I set aside the closure of evidence of PW 39 and direct the learned trial court to grant a single day's opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine PW 39 by fixing a date for such purpose in the month of april, 2022. The cross-examination would be done regardless of the purported correction of evidence of PW 39 as had earlier been prayed
The right to a fair trial includes the right to cross-examine witnesses, and the court may set aside the closure of evidence to ensure this right is upheld.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
An order under Section 311 Cr.P.C. is interlocutory and not subject to revision. Recalling a witness should be balanced with considerations of fairness, undue hardship to witnesses, and delay in the ....
The right to cross-examine witnesses is a statutory and fundamental right, crucial for ensuring a fair trial, necessitating courts to allow such opportunities to the accused.
The duty of the court is to take necessary steps to get to the truth of the matter and decide cases based on relevant material, while cautioning against routine use of the power to recall witnesses a....
The right to effective cross-examination is fundamental to a fair trial, and parties must be given adequate opportunities to present their defenses, particularly when prior cross-examinations were in....
The court established that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. allows for re-examination of witnesses when essential for a just decision, emphasizing the importance of thorough cross-examination.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the essentiality of evidence for the just decision of the case and the wide discretionary powers of the court under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The court affirmed that cross-examination must adhere to the relevance of questions as per the Evidence Act, ensuring the protection of privacy rights.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 311 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the discretionary and obligatory nature of the power to recall and re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.