The central legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Court to ensure a fair trial, determine the truth, and render a just decision, as well as the need to provide the accused with a fair opportunity to defend the prosecution case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to call for the records pertaining to Cr.R.P.No.9 of 2022, dated 17.6.2022, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge,Virudhunagar, by confirming the order passed in Cr.MP.No.4122 of 2019 in CC.No.119 of 2014, dated 03.8.2019.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to challenge the impugned order Cr.R.P.No.9 of 2022, dated 17.6.2022, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, by confirming the order passed in Cr.MP.No.4122 of 2019 in CC.No.119 of 2014, dated 03.8.2019, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was prosecuted by the respondent Police in Crime No.16 of 2014, for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. The final report has been taken on file as CC No.119 of 2014, on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar. So far, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. The petitioner has failed to cross examine PW1 to PW4 on 26.06.2014, since he was absent on that day of chief examination of those witnesses. Hence, he has filed petition to cross examine PW1 to PW4, since PW1 and PW2 were eyewitness, PW3 and PW4 were corroborating witness to the occurrence. Without giving fair chance to the petitioner to defend the prosecution case, both the trial Court and the revision Court had dismissed the petitions. Aggrieved by the same, he has filed this petition.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that out of 18 witnesses, 15 witnesses had been examined so far. On 26.06.2014, PW1 to PW4 were examined and after a lapse of long time, this petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.

4. I considered the matter in the light of discussions adduced by both parties. Perusal of records reveal the fact that the petitioner is an accused in CC No.119 of 2014, concerned in Crime No.16 of 2014, for the offences under Section 304(A) IPC. On the side of prosecution, 15 witnesses had been examined. On the day of chief examination of PW1 to PW4, the petitioner has failed to cross examine those witnesses. On that day, the accused was not appeared and petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C was filed and allowed. Admittedly, PW1 and PW2 were eyewitness, PW3 and PW4 were corroborating witness to the occurrence. Under these circumstances, a fair opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to put forth his defence effectively.

5. In Rajaram Prasad Yadav vs. State of Bihar and another (AIR 2013 SC 3081), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has summed up the legal position relating to Section 311 Cr.P.C and has enumerated the following principles which will have to be borne in mind by the Courts:

(a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?

(b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate, inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.

(c)If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.

(d)The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case. (e)The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

(f)The wide discretionary power should be