Back
SUMEET GOEL
Vikas – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUMEET GOEL, J.
1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of order dated 23,10.2023 (Annexure P11) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur whereby application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. of 1973, for re-calling of PW1 (victim), was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the re- examination of the victim was very much necessary for proper and fair adjudication of the case. He submits that some important facts/questions, which have material bearing on the decision of the case, were not earlier put to the victim (PW1) during her cross-examination. It has been further argued that the Court below has dismissed the application on the ground that the victim had already been examined at length and moreover no specific question or aspect has been mentioned in the application which necessitated re-examination of the said victim (PW1). According to the learned counsel, the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures and the learned trial Court ought to have a I Sowed the said application. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
3. L
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental to a fair trial, and courts must allow re-examination if essential for justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary and mandatory aspects of S.311 of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for judicious exercise of power and the requirement for the evide....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of a trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to allow re-examination of a witness for the purpose of conducting cross-examination o....
The main legal point established is the judicious exercise of discretionary power under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. to ensure the just decision of the case, considering the essentiality of evidence an....
The right to cross-examine witnesses is a statutory and fundamental right, crucial for ensuring a fair trial, necessitating courts to allow such opportunities to the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 311 of Cr.P.C and the dilution of rigor under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act once the victim crosses the age of 18....
Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only when it is essential for just decision of case.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
An application to recall a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory and not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of CrPC; valid reasons must be provided for such requests.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
