Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 3399
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh - Appellant
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation - Respondent
Crl. Revision No. 3896 of 2016 (O&M)
Decided On : 24-10-2016
For the Petitioner: S.K. Garg Narwana, Naveen Gupta
The court's decision emphasized the limitations on recalling witnesses for cross-examination, especially when their evidence was recorded years before and would cause embarrassment.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code - Application for copies of statements of prosecutrix PW-5 and PW-10 recorded by Investigating Officer - Sections 161, 311 Cr.P.C. - The court rejected the application for directing the CBI to provide copies of statements of PW-5 and PW-10 recorded by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner sought to confront the witnesses with their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer. The court held that the evidence of PW-5 and PW-10 was recorded years before and recalling them for cross-examination would cause embarrassment, and there was no further reason to grant the petitioner's request.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application to direct the CBI to provide copies of statements of PW-5 and PW-10 recorded by the Investigating Officer. The application was rejected by the trial court, and the petitioner challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no reason to recall the witnesses for cross-examination as their evidence was recorded years before, and it would cause embarrassment to the witnesses. The court also noted that the petitioner had already availed of multiple opportunities.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court should grant the petitioner's request to provide copies of statements of PW-5 and PW-10 and recall them for cross-examination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recalling the witnesses for cross-examination would cause embarrassment and there was no further reason to grant the petitioner's request, as the evidence of PW-5 and PW-10 was recorded years before.
Final Decision: The court summarily dismissed the revision petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's request.
A.B. Chaudhari, J.
This revision petition is directed against order dated 18.10.2016 passed by Special Judge (CBI) Haryana at Panchkula by which the application dated 13.10.2016 filed by the petitioner for directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)/prosecution to provide copies of statements of prosecutrix PW-5 and PW-10 recorded by Investigating Officer (IO) Mr. K. L. Raina in the year 2003 and consequently to defer the further recording of evidence of Mr. K. L. Raina and also to summon PW-5 and PW-10 for further cross-examination in order to confront them with the statements recorded by Mr. K.L. Raina.
2. The CBI had undertaken investigation for the serious offence of rape etc. against the petitioner and the charge sheet was filed. The trial Court had framed charges against the petitioner in the year 2008 and thereafter the trial had commenced. The entire evidence of the prosecution as well as of defence was recorded by the learned Special Judge (CBI). Even the defence examined several witnesses. The prosecution completed its arguments and then it was the turn of the defence to advance the arguments. The petitioner had filed two applications dated 13.07.2016 and 19.07.2016. In the application dated 13.07.2016 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. it was prayed that Mr. K. L. Raina along with police case diary, as a Court witness, be summoned. While in application dated 19.07.2016 direction was sought for production of copies of statements of PW-5 and PW-10 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded by Mr. K. L. Raina. Both these applications were rejected by the Special Judge (CBI) vide common order dated 06.08.2016 (Annexure P-5). The order dated 06.08.2016 was confirmed by this Court on 02.09.2016 in Crl. Revision No. 2982 of 2016. It appears that the petitioner then put to challenge both the aforesaid orders i.e. by Special Judge (CBI) and of this Court in SLP (Crl.) No.7262 of 2016 and it appears from the record of the proceedings of the Apex Court that the order dated 02.09.2016 made by this Court in Crl. Revision No. 2982 of 2016 was challenged since there is no reference to the common order dated 02.09.2016 passed in Crl. Revision No. 2863 of 2016 in the record of proceedings. The Apex Court vide order dated 04.10.2016 allowed the examination of Mr. K.L. Raina (IO) as a court witness. His evidence was recorded as ordered by the Apex Court on 13.10.2016 and the cross-examination was also completed on the same date i.e. on 13.10.2016. The petitioner filed the application in question (Annexure P-8) which came to be rejected by the order impugned.
3. Assailing the impugned order, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner contended that the trial Court committed an error in rejecting the application on the ground that the Apex Court had not disturbed the orders made by the trial Court as well as this Court by which the prayer for direction to produce copies of statements of PW-5 and PW-10 was declined and that, therefore, the trial Court landed in the error, all the more because immediately after recording the evidence of Mr. K.L. Raina, the application in question was filed. He submitted that the contradictions in any event are required to be put to the witness first before getting the same proved from the police officer who recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and, therefore, it was essential to have the production of the statements of PW-5 and PW-10 and also to recall them as witnesses for further cross-examination and thereafter recalling Mr. K. L. Raina for further cross-examination. He cited number of decisions and heavily relied on the decision made in the case of V.K. Mishra and another v. State of Uttarakhand & another reported as (2015) 9 Supreme Court Cases 588 paras 15 to 20. He has also relied on several judgments of which compilation was supplied to this Court.
4. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner then contended that the petitioner wanted to bring before the Court the fact th
