The petitioner, who is complainant, has filed this revision against the impugned order dated 5.7.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad in Sessions Trial No.8 of 1997. By the impugned order, learned trial Court rejected the application of complainant for recalling PW 11 Vishwanath Sharma. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly after lapse of two years and lengthy cross-examination has already been done with the said witness. Though PW 11 Vishwanath Sharma has been declared hostile in the Sessions Trial, but the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier in another case No. 195/1995, the said witness has given a statement that he is being threatened not to give any evidence in murder case of Narendra Singh and questions and explanation relating to his earlier statement could not be asked. The reason might be that the Government Pleader may not have full instruction in the matter. Therefore, the re-cross-examination of PW 11 is necessary to confront him from his earlier statement in other case. Prayer for recalling the said witness for the purposes of re-cross-examination is also necessary in the interest of prosecution case and also essential to the just decision of the case.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the complainant produced before me the statement of PW 11 Vishwanath Sharma, which was recorded on 27th August, 2001. It is clear from the statement and cross-examination of PW 11 that the Government Advocate has not asked any question about his earlier statement given in another case nor he was confronted from his earlier statement. This is an important circumstance, on which the cross-examination from the witness is necessary. The provisions of section 311 CrPC can be exercised and witness can be resummoned for the purposes of re-cross-examination, if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case and in such circumstances the application may be allowed. It appears that while rejecting the application the learned trial Court has not considered this aspect of the matter and has wrongly rejected the application. This objection of the respondent accused also does not carry any weight that the complainant has no right to file this revision. In fact, the complainant is a victim in a criminal case and he can watch the prosecution case and under special circumstances can assist the prosecution and can see that the justice is done with him in a crime committed against him.

Accordingly, this revision is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The application filed under section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is also allowed. The witness PW 11 Vishwanath Sharma be resummoned for re-cross-examination and prosecution be permitted to re-cross-examine him. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and complete the same positively within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.

With the aforesaid direction, this revision is finally disposed of.