The court upheld the Trial Court's decision to allow the prosecution to recall witnesses for further examination, emphasizing the importance of clarifying discrepancies in evidence without infringing on the accused's rights.

ORAL ORDER

This petition by the accused in C.C.No.108/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Ponnampet (for short “the Trial Court”), whereby the application filed by the prosecution under Section 242 (2) r/w. Section 311 Cr.P.C ., seeking permission to further examine CWs.1 to 6 was allowed by the Trial Court.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings pending against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 IPC. The prosecution examined many witnesses including CWs.1 to 6 and they were cross-examined by the petitioner-accused. Subsequently, after the statement of petitioner-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C . was recorded by the Trial Court, the prosecution filed the instant application seeking permission to produce additional documents and recall CWs.1 to 6 for further evidence. The said application having opposed by the petitioner- accused, the Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned order allowing the application, aggrieved by which the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the Trial Court has considered and appreciated the rival contentions and has recorded correct findings that the proposed further evidence sought to be adduced by the prosecution was relevant and material for the purpose of adjudication of issues in controversy between the parties. While coming to the said conclusion, the Trial court held as under:

“This application is filed by the learned APP under Sec.242(2) of Cr.P.C . R/W 311 of Cr.P.C . seeking permission to issue witness summons to CW-1 to 6.

2. The learned APP has filed the application and stated that it is the case of the prosecution is that on 30.12.2020 at Kunda village, when CW-1 and 2 were going to their wetland, accused person picked up quarrel with them regarding right of way, and wrongfully restrained them and assaulted to CW-1 on face and chest and caused simple injuries.

3. In the application it is stated that at the time of examination of PW-1 to 4 and 6 they have deposed the date of incident as 30.12.2021 and 31.12.2021. The said incident occurs on 30.12.2020 but in the evidence it has come as 30.12.2021. After that also prosecution has not clarified the said aspect. Hence it is necessary to recall the witnesses to ascertain with regard to year of alleged incident. If application is allowed no prejudice will be caused to accused on the other hand if application is not allowed much injustice will be caused to prosecution. Accordingly prosecution has filed application seeking to issue witness summons to PW-1 to 6 for further chief.

4. Advocate for accused has filed objection and contended that the application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The trial in the above case is over and posted for arguments. The learned APP instead of arguing the case has filed this application for re-trial by recalling all the prosecution witnesses. The alleged medico legal certificates was not sent along with the charge sheet by the I.O. and the copy of such document is not furnished to the accused as required under law, hence it cannot be produced now after the closure of the evidence in the case. The document sought to be produced and marked are irrelevant and not required for the just decision in the case. The Gonikoppa police have filed the charge sheet against the accused in the above case after completion of investigation and hence the APP cannot by way of further investigation produce new documents in the above case. There are not any reasons urged for filing this belated application and hence the prosecution cannot file such illegal applications as of rights without any reasons for their lapses if any. Hence the prosecution cannot urge their own ignorance or fault as