Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 594
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Abid @ Guddu - Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 1015 of 2012
Decided on: 19.09.2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Deputy Advocate General (Criminal) for the State.
The court can recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if their evidence appears to be essential for the just decision of the case and to sub serve the cause of justice.
Headnote:
Recall of Witness - Section 311 Cr.P.C. - The court rejected the application to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. as the witness had already been cross-examined in detail and there was no justification to recall the witness merely on the basis of dissatisfaction with earlier statements. The court cited previous judgments to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to recall a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in a trial, arguing that the witness had not been examined on certain points which would affect the adjudication.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the application, stating that the witness had already been cross-examined in detail and there was no justification to recall the witness merely on the basis of dissatisfaction with earlier statements.
Issues: The issue was whether the court should allow the recall of a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. based on the dissatisfaction with earlier statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited previous judgments to establish that there should be a valid reason for recalling a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and dissatisfaction with earlier statements alone is not sufficient.
Final Decision: The petition to recall the witness was dismissed in limine.
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. By means of this petition, a prayer has been advanced to recall PW3 Farzana under Section 311 Cr.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 284 of 2010. Ms. Farzana was cross examined on 12.11.2011 in the trial and since then, almost nine months have further elapsed, so this Court can anticipate that few more witnesses might have been examined by now. But at some later stage an application was moved on behalf of accused Abid to re-summon PW3 Farzana under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for the reason that on few points she has still not been examined and the failure to question her at those points would affect the adjudication. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Roorkee has rejected such application on the ground that Ms. Farzana was cross examined, in detail, at the time when she admitted in the court.
2. Section 311 Cr.P.C. envisages that the court can recall witness, if his evidence appears to be essential, for just decision of the case and also with a view to sub serve the cause of justice.
3. This Court has also earlier laid down a law in the case of Trilochan Singh & others Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in 2002 (2) ELC 981 that there is no justification to recall the witnesses, merely on the asking that they are not satisfied with earlier statements recorded in the trial; because if it is done so there will be no logical end of the examination of the same witnesses. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mir Mohd. Omar Vs. State of W.B. reported in 1989 A. Cr. R. 693 SC has categorically held that permission cannot be accorded to recall the witness to resile from his statement in the name of asking few more questions, so this application has rightly been rejected by the court below.
4. In the above conspectus, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed in limine. Inform the court below.
