Back
2022 Supreme(P&H) 1166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.
Gulzar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-4567-2022
Decided On : 04-02-2022
Mr. Lakshay Bector, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Headnote:
Recall of Witness - Section 311 Cr.P.C. - The court dismissed the petitioner's application for recalling a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination, emphasizing that the discretion to recall a witness is wide but must be exercised with circumspection and only if strong and compelling reasons are presented. The court found that the delay in filing the application, the ample opportunity given for cross-examination, and the lack of essentiality for further cross-examination were grounds for dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of an order dismissing the application for recalling a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination in a case involving charges under IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing the wide discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness but also the need for strong and compelling reasons. The court found that the delay in filing the application, the ample opportunity for cross-examination, and the lack of essentiality for further cross-examination led to the dismissal of the application.
Issues: The issues involved the exercise of discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling a witness for further cross-examination and the grounds for dismissing such an application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness for further examination is wide but must be exercised with circumspection and only if strong and compelling reasons are presented. The delay in filing the application, the ample opportunity for cross-examination, and the lack of essentiality for further cross-examination were grounds for dismissal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application for recalling the witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further cross-examination, emphasizing the need for strong and compelling reasons to exercise the wide discretion under the provision.
JUDGMENT
Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) - The petitioner is seeking quashing of order dated 13.10.2021 vide which an application filed by him under Section 311 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court for recalling of PW-8 in case FIR No.74 dated 30.06.2018 registered under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 at Police Station Koom Kalan, Ludhiana, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that PW8-Kuldeep Singh who had prepared the site plan of the occurrence in question could not be cross-examined before the trial Court with regard to Mark A (where the alleged occurrence took place) and Mark B (from where the petitioner was arrested), due to rush of work of the counsel representing him before the trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court thus gravely erred in not appreciating that for a just decision of the case, wide powers which had been vested in it ought to have been exercised, more so when the trial was still underway.
3. Heard and perused the material on record.The discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall a witness for his further examination, no doubt is wide, however, it has to be exercised with a great deal of circumspection and only if some strong and compelling reasons have been brought forth.
4. Adverting to the case in hand, PW8-Kuldeep Singh was examined on 24.02.2021. The application under Section 311 for seeking his further examination was moved after a delay of almost 7 months i.e. on 20.09.2021 and that too after the prosecution evidence had concluded and when the case was fixed for defence evidence.
5. Admittedly, the counsel for the petitioner was given due and ample opportunity to cross-examine PW8-Kuldeep Singh. Merely because certain questions were not put to the witness cannot be a ground to recall the witness for further cross-examination more so, when the prosecutrix in the present case was examined much prior to the examination of PW8-Kuldeep Singh and hence the petitioner had requisite material as well as ample opportunity to put relevant questions to the said witness.
6. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to how the further cross-examination of PW8-Kuldeep Singh would be essential for the just decision of the case. It appears to be a ploy on the part of the petitioner to prolong and delay the trial which as already observed earlier is at the fag end.
Dismissed.
