Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned

HCGP for respondent No.1-State and perused the material

on record.

The order dated 09.01.2023 passed by the Court of

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (sitting at

Ranebennur), in S.C.No.28/2018 rejecting the application

filed by the petitioners under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for

recalling PW.1, PW.3 and PW.13 for further cross

examination, has been called in question in this petition

filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Petitioners are facing trial for offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 307, 504,

506 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The material on record would

reveal that CW.1 was examined as PW.1 and his cross

examination was closed on 05.02.2021, CW.4 was

examined as PW.3 and his cross examination was closed

- 4 -

on 16.07.2019 and CW.18 was examined as PW.13 and his

cross examination was closed on 09.12.2021.

The defence filed an application under Section 311 of

Cr.P.C. on 27.10.2022 for further cross examination of

above mentioned witnesses, to which the prosecution filed

statements of objection. Vide impugned order trial Court

has rejected the said application, observing that the said

witnesses were cross examined at length and all the

questions pertaining to the points were asked exhaustively

to the witnesses and there are no reasons for recalling

them for further cross examination. It is also observed

that the accused are delaying the proceedings and

application is filed to fill up the lacuna and drag on the

proceedings to harass the prosecution witnesses.

The learned counsel for petitioners has contended

that further cross examination of the witnesses is very

much necessary to prove their defence based on the

documents produced at the time of cross examination and

- 5 -

inadvertently, the defence has omitted to cross examine

the above mentioned witnesses based on the documents.

The case of the prosecution is that on account of

previous enmity, the accused persons picked up quarrel

with the complainant and with an intention to commit

murder, assaulted him with wooden sticks etc. The

complainant was examined as PW.1 and another eye

witness is examined as PW.3. Investigation Officer was

examined as PW.13. The trial Court has observed that

there are as many as 14 pages of cross examination of

PW.1 and 6 pages of cross examination of PW.3. Be that

as it may. The application filed under Section 311 is very

bald and vague. It is stated therein that witnesses are

required to be cross examined on the basis of the

documents produced and except the same, there are no

other reasons assigned in the said application as to on

what aspect the witnesses are required for cross

examination. It is not the case of defence that they were

not at all given an opportunity to cross examine the

- 6 -

witnesses. In fact, the witnesses have been extensively

cross examined as rightly observed by the learned trial

Judge. Incident is of the year 2017. The case is pending

before the trial Court since 2018. Hence, the observations

of the learned Sessions Judge that the application under

Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was filed either to fill up lacuna or

to drag on the proceedings, appears to be correct.

No satisfactory reasons are assigned to allow the

application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. Hence,

petition is dismissed.

IA No.1/2023 is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HMB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61