Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 908
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
Suber & Ors. - Petitioners
Vs.
The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.4696 of 2016
Decided On : 17-03-2016
For the Petitioners: Mr. S.M.A. Jinnah
For the Respondent:Mr. K.V. Rajarajan Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
The importance of cross examining witnesses on the date of their examination in chief to prevent tampering and hostility.
Headnote:
Cross Examination - Criminal Procedure - The court directed the Judicial Magistrate to complete the trial within three months, emphasizing the importance of cross examining witnesses on the date of their examination in chief to prevent tampering and hostility.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed to direct the Judicial Magistrate to dispose of a case where the accused were charged under Section 506 (ii) IPC r/w Eve Teasing Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. The accused had filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling witnesses, which was allowed by the Magistrate.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the Judicial Magistrate to complete the trial within three months, emphasizing the importance of cross examining witnesses on the date of their examination in chief to prevent tampering and hostility.
Issues: Delay in trial and the importance of cross examining witnesses on the date of their examination in chief.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in trial cannot be countenanced, and the court emphasized the importance of cross examining witnesses on the date of their examination in chief to prevent tampering and hostility.
Final Decision: The Judicial Magistrate was directed to complete the trial within three months from the date of receipt of the order, provided the accused cooperate in the conduct of the trial by cross examining witnesses without unnecessary adjournments.
This petition has been filed to direct the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur to dispose the case in C.C. No. 38 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.
3. It is seen that the petitioners are accused in C.C. No. 38 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, for the offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC r/w Eve Teasing Act and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Women Harassment Act. On seeing the Diary extract, though a final report was filed in the year 2010, the accused appeared only on 23.12.2011 and after furnishing copies, they were questioned on 02.03.2012. On 21.09.2012, L.Ws.1 and 2 were examined as P.Ws.1 & 2, but the accused did not cross examine the witnesses on the same day of examination in chief. Therefore, the accused filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling P.Ws.1 & 2, which was allowed by the Magistrate on 09.11.2012.
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), on instructions submitted that the prosecution has examined two more witnesses and thus, totally four witnesses have been examined.
5. In Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (1) Scale 542, the Supreme Court has categorically stated that witnesses should be cross examined on the date they are examined in chief, because there are every possibilities of the accused tampering with the witnesses and making them turn hostile. In fact, the Supreme Court in the said judgment relied upon the chief examination of a witness, who in his cross-examination after some days, did not support the prosecution, to convict the accused. Under Section 154 of the Evidence Act, as amended recently, the evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be ignored and those portions of evidence, which are in support of the prosecution case can be relied upon by the Court to convict the accused. When law has travelled this far, the delay in trial cannot be countenanced.
6. Under such circumstances, learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur is directed to complete the trial in C.C. No. 38 of 2010 within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, provided the accused co-operate in the conduct of the trial by cross examining witnesses without unnecessary adjournments.
