SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(All) 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. S. N. TRIPATHI
RAMASHANKER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION 505 Of 1996
Decided On : 05/16/1996

Advocates Appeared:
B.N.RAI

The accused's right to cross-examine witnesses in a serious case under Section 302, IPC, and the court's discretion to order the recall of witnesses in the interest of justice.

Headnote:

Amicus Curiae - Cross-examination - The court ordered the lower court to recall witnesses for further cross-examination by the private counsel for the accused in the interest of justice under Section 302, IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The accused requested the recall of two witnesses for further cross-examination after engaging a private counsel, which was initially rejected by the lower court.

Finding of the Court:

The court allowed the revision, set aside the lower court's order, and directed the recall of the witnesses for further cross-examination by the private counsel for the accused.

Issues: The issue revolved around the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses in a serious case under Section 302, IPC, and the rejection of the application for recall by the lower court.

Ratio Decidendi: In the interest of justice, the accused should be given abundant opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in a serious case like this under Section 302, IPC.

Final Decision: The revision was allowed, the lower court's order was set aside, and the witnesses were directed to be recalled for further cross-examination by the private counsel for the accused.

G. S. N. TRIPATHI, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in S. T. No. 134 of 1995 State v. Nanhkau and others.

( 2 ) FORMERLY, the accused had engaged no private counsel. Therefore, Amicus Curiae was provided to him at a later stage. On 17-8-95, the accused engaged a private counsel. Thereafter, he prayed that two witnesses, namely P. W. 1 Gauri Shankar and PW-2 Arvind Kumar, who had already been cross-examined by the learned Amicus Curiae, be recalled for further cross-examination. The learned lower Court has rejected this application without assigning any reason.

( 3 ) IN the interest of justice, it is essential that in a serious case like this, under Section 302, IPC the accused be given abundant opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. This is a question of life and death for the accused.

( 4 ) IN the interest of justice, it is ordered that the learned lower Court shall recall the two witnesses aforesaid for cross-examination by the private counsel for the accused.

( 5 ) THE revision, is therefore, allowed. The order dated 2-4-1996 passed by the learned lower Court is set aside. The learned lower Court shall recall the aforesaid these two witnesses only for further cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused on 2-7-1996. Thereafter, proceedings shall be taken on day to day basis and he shall decide the matter in accordance with law. A copy of this order shall be given to the learned counsel for the revisionist on payment of usual charges. Revision allowed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top