Back
A. BADHARUDEEN
Ratheesh K. C. – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The court emphasized that the power to recall and re-examine a witness under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C is crucial for uncovering the truth and ensuring a just decision, especially when the witness's testimony is vital and there are concerns of intimidation or coercion (!) (!) .
The order allowing the recall and re-examination of the witness was upheld by the court, as it found that such action was necessary for a fair and just determination of the case (!) .
The court clarified that Section 311 of the Cr.P.C grants wide discretionary powers to the court to summon, examine, recall, or re-examine witnesses at any stage of the proceedings, but these powers should be exercised with caution and only when necessary for justice (!) (!) .
The court noted that once a witness has been fully examined and cross-examined, recalling and re-examining that witness should generally be avoided unless their evidence is deemed essential for the case's just resolution (!) (!) .
The court highlighted that the power to recall a witness can be invoked by the prosecution, the accused, or suo motu by the court, and must be exercised based on strong and valid reasons (!) (!) (!) .
In the case at hand, the court found that the victim's allegations of coercion by relatives and her subsequent statement to the prosecutor justified the recall, as her testimony was considered crucial for the case's fair adjudication (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the order allowing the recall, affirming that the decision was within the court's authority and aligned with the principles of justice (!) .
The court directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to the Special Court for further action (!) .
These points reflect the court's reasoning and the importance placed on the procedural and substantive aspects of witness examination under the relevant legal provisions.
ORDER :
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘Cr.P.C’ for short) by the accused in Crime No.655 of 2023 of Kuttiyadi Police Station, Kozhikode, with a prayer to quash Annexure A5 order dated 14.05.2024 in C.M.P.No.156/2024 in S.C.No.1394/2023 on the files of Fast Track Special Judge, Nadapuram, where the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 450, 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 51, 5n, 6(1), 3(a) and 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (‘POCSO Act’ for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the entire case records in this matter.
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim in this crime was examined as PW11 on 17.04.2024 and she turned hostile to the prosecution. Thereafter she was subjected to questioning by the learned Public Prosecutor but nothing extracted to support the prosecution. Later, on 03.05.2024, the learned Public Prosecutor filed Annexure-A3 petition under Section 311 of Cr.P.C to recall and re-examine PW11 on the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
