Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3563
DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan Singh, J.
Suresh Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Rajeev Gupta - Resopndent
Crl. M.C. No. 3978 of 2014 & Crl. M.A. No. 16542 of 2014
Decided On : 12-01-2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. R.S. Mahla, Advocate.
The main legal point established is that the court may decline to interfere with an order dismissing an application to recall witnesses under section 311 Cr.P.C. if the petitioner has already been given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and the attempt to recall witnesses appears to be a cover-up.
Headnote:
Recalling Witnesses - Criminal Revision - The court declined to interfere with the order dismissing the petitioner's application to recall witnesses under section 311 Cr.P.C., stating that the petitioner had been granted ample opportunity to produce evidence and that the attempt to recall witnesses appeared to be a cover-up.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent caused injury to the petitioner, leading to a charge under section 323 IPC. The petitioner filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall witnesses, which was dismissed by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunity to produce evidence and that the attempt to recall witnesses seemed to be an attempt to cover up the case.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner's application to recall witnesses under section 311 Cr.P.C. should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the petitioner had already been given ample opportunity to produce evidence and that the attempt to recall witnesses appeared to be an attempt to cover up the case.
Final Decision: The court declined to interfere with the order dismissing the petitioner's application to recall witnesses and dismissed the petition.
Manmohan Singh, J.:--
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 5th October, 2008 the respondent gave beatings to the petitioner which caused him injury as per complaint case No. 15/1/12. The trial court has framed a charge against the respondent for offence under section 323 IPC on 12th November, 2013. The evidence was concluded on 6th May, 2014. Thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments as last opportunity. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling more witnesses. The said application was dismissed by the learned trial court on 7th July, 2014.
2. Against the said order, a Criminal Revision No. 94/2014 was filed by the petitioner in which it was stated that if the impugned order is not set aside it may result into miscarriage of justice to the petitioner as the evidence of two witnesses is necessary in order to bring out the facts on record.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears to me that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity to produce the evidence. After the completion of entire evidence when the matter was put up for final arguments, the petitioner filed the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. It is also a matter of fact that the name of two witnesses, which are mentioned in the application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling more witnesses, were not mentioned in the list of witnesses at the time of filing of the complaint. It appears to the Court that the petitioner is trying to cover up his case by producing more witnesses.
4. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 28th July, 2014 passed by the Revisional Court as I do not find any infirmity in the said order. Even otherwise, the scope of interference in the present petition is very limited. The petition is dismissed.
5. The interim order passed on 28th October, 2014 is vacated.
