1997 Supreme(MP) 1192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
T.S. DOABIA, J.
Mangilal – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. – Respondent
Cr. Revn. No. 47 of 1997 (G)
Decided On : 05-02-1997

Headnote:(1) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 311 - witness filing affidavit after recording his statements in the Court - he should be summoned for cross - examination.

       (2) Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 138 - witness filing affidavit after recording his statement in Court - should be summoned for cross - examination.

       Short Note

       1. The learned counsel for the petitioners as also the State counsel have been heard.

       2. The counsel for petitioners submits that an eye witness namely Bhola Ram S/o Shri Kanhai Ram has filed an affidavit to the effect that he had not seen the occurrence. This affidavit is dated 7th of February, 1997. On the basis of this, it is submitted that this Bholaram who had earlier appeared as prosecution witness as P.W. 1 be permitted to be cross - examined. Reliance is being placed on a decision given by the Allahabad High Court reported as Sukkhan and another v. State of U.P. 1988 (1) Crimes 245. Circumstances were similar in the aforementioned case. After the statement was recorded in the Court an affidavit was filed. Allahabad High Court observed that it is natural and proper that such a person should be summoned afresh under section 311 of the CrPC and he should be confronted with the statement contained in the affidavit.

       3. Relying upon the aforementioned judgment, I am of the opinion that let an opportunity be given to the accused to cross - examine Bholaram vis - a - vis his affidavit. For this purpose, this witness be cross - examined again. This petition is allowed in the manner indicated above.