The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the Court to recall or summon witnesses under Section 540 Cr.P.C, emphasizing the need for eliciting all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion and finding out the truth.

1. All the five petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') are facing trial in case FIR No. 101/2009 registered at Police Station, Udhampur under Sections 302/34/452/212/109/120-B RPC and 3/25&4/2S of Indian Arms Act forallegedly causing the death of one Sanjay Jandial. Through the instant Criminal Revision, they seek setting aside of order dated 10-11-2010 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, whereby application moved by the State through Special Public Prosecutor u/s 540 of Cr.P.C read with Section 154 of Indian Evidence Act, for recalling/re-examining the witnesses, namely Surjit Singh, Sumit Khajuria, Raj Mathur and additionally summoning PW Kewal Jandial, the brother of the deceased who is not figuring in the list of witnesses furnished with the final report (challan) has been allowed.

2. It needs to be mentioned here that accused Rajesh Pandoh, who is also known as Raju as one finds from the evidence on record was initially booked under Section 212 RPC only for harbouring the offenders and granted bail. Subsequently, he was rearrested as the Police has allegedly found him to be involved for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 120-B RPC. The evidence of the aforesaid witnesses sought to be reexamined by the prosecution is primarily with regard to the involvement of the accused Rajesh Pandoh only.

3. Another important fact, which needs to be mentioned here, is that the trial of the present case had initially started before learned Sessions Judge, Udhampur, before whom, five prosecution witnesses were examined including the aforesaid three witnesses. At that time, one Mr. Anil Vijay, Advocate was representing the State after being appointed as Special Public Prosecutor at the request of father of the deceased. However, the complainant questioned the fairness of the trial includ#31;ing the bona fides and competence of the said Special Public Prosecutor conducting the trial at Udhampur and sought appointment of Mr. R.K.Kotwal, Advocate (Jammu) as Special Public Prosecutor which request was acceded to by the Home Department, as such appointed him as Special Public Prosecutor vide SRO No.232/2010.

4. After appointment of Mr. R.K. Kotwal as Special Public Prosecutor, the complainant moved an application through him bearing Cr.T. A. No.04/2010 before High Court seeking withdrawal of the case from the files of Sessions Court, Udhampur and its transfer to any other Court of competent jurisdiction at Jammu, inter alia on the grounds that after noticing that two of the prosecution witnesses, namely Sumit Khajuria and Raj Mathur, resiled from their earlier statements during their cross-examination and also from their, statements recorded under Section 164-A CrPC, the Special Public Prosecutor conducting the trial did not make any effort to subject these witnesses to cross examine. Even the learned trial Court did not control the proceedings to ensure that the true facts are brought on the file.

5. Another ground taken in the aforesaid transfer application was that one of the PWs, namely Surjit Singh, turned hostile before the trial Court who was subsequently contacted by Kewal Jandial son of the complainant on a cell phone so as to know the circumstances, in which the said witness had resiled from his earlier statement upon which he (Surjit Singh) informed Kewal Jandial that he was threat#31;ened of dire consequences by the accused. The threat was also extended to the lives of his children. The complainant claimed that his son Kewal Jandial had recorded the conversation and placed the same on Compact Disc (CD). In addition to it, the complainant also voiced his reservation with regard to the fairness of the trial.

6. The High Court ultimately noticing all the facts in detail and the manner in which the proceedings were controlled by the learned trial Judge found it to be a fit case for transfer, as such the file of the present case was withdrawn from Sessions Court, Udhampur and transferred t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document